ET TU, Craig Ferguson?

In the imagination of William Shakespeare, these were the words uttered by a mortally wounded Julius Caesar as he looked into the eyes of his friend, Brutus...Yes, not Craig Ferguson! It is not a reaction that I had to the news as I sat no more than 25 feet from Mr. Ferguson when he made the announcement that he was leaving his hosting duties on "The Late Late Show". Well, all right me and 149 other people, but the point is they all "ooohhh'ed" and "ahhhh'ed" but I didn't. I listened carefully as Mr. Ferguson rightfully predicted that on certain internet sites and even in walk-about life, some fans and foes alike would feel much like Caesar did: betrayed. Not necessarily stabbed, mind you, just betrayed by his leaving the show.



(Craig Ferguson. From CBS-TV under Fair Use)

By now there are two questions some of you may be asking yourself. Why didn't I "ooohhh" and "ahhhh"? And who the hell is Craig Ferguson? As to the former, I wasn't surprised by his announcement that after 10 years he is stepping down from "The Late Late Show" on CBS. He's made many thinly veiled comments lately about how ten years is a long time to be hosting a show and he's talked openly about how he is in negotiations to host a game show. I knooooow! A game show. As to the latter, I would hope that the link supplied above to the Wikipedia entry about the show...Wikipedia? What the hell?...which was written by several Ferguson fans apparently, would give the reader the rock solid foundation they needed to answer the question.

There's been quite the shake-up recently in the realm of late night network talk shows. Jay Leno over at "The Tonight Show" (NBC, 11:35pm) once again stepped down as host (as far as we know, but give it time) and Jimmy Fallon has taken over the job. Since Fallon was hosting NBC's "The Late Night Show" (12:35am), someone had to be found to replace him and that person was found in the form of Seth Meyers. Now NBC's entire late night talk show schedule is run by Lorne Michaels and his hybrids. Michaels' sense of humor now permeates the entire NBC late night landscape instead of just the 90 minutes to be found on Saturday nights.

Over at CBS, the recent news of long time host of "The Late Show", David Letterman, leaving in early 2015, meant that a new host had to be found as well. And Craig Ferguson wasn't it, but the thing is, he didn't want to be it! So, that is why, eventually, CBS chose Stephen Colbert to be it. What the hell? This is sounding like some grade school playground game. Significant pause. And maybe it is...
Craig Ferguson rightly ridiculed some websites as completely unconcerned with "the truth", so that is where one must wander to find whatever minutiae one may wander about. The point is, with Mr. Ferguson's announcement the shake-up at two major networks is now complete. Significant pause. Or is it...?

Whether or not anyone wants to admit it, there has been no major shake-up on any of the major networks' late night talk shows. As Mr. Ferguson has said himself, "a middle-aged white guy in a suit telling jokes on late night TV. Has it ever been done?!?" He was, of course, doing his oft-brilliant deconstruction of the late night genre, but essentially it is still the same! It's 2014 networks! What the hell? Unless CBS makes some bold move...pause for laughter...that Mr. Ferguson's replacement shall be...naw! Not going to happen. It's still going to be a plethora of middle-aged white guys in a suit telling jokes on late night TV.

However, et tu Craig Ferguson, actually means he is not engaged in any act of betrayal, but he is simply one of many who has chosen to follow his bliss in a different way after ten years hosting "The Late Late Show". He has been unlike any current late night talk show host. His closest antecedent in the deconstruction of the format has been his boss, David Letterman, but his show overall reminds me of the great Ernie Kovacs.

Kovacs constantly did bits and sketches and monologues that mocked, experimented with and even challenged the medium whether or not anyone cared to notice. Maybe one could argue that Mr. Ferguson was not as grandiose in some of his visionary humor, but that may be due to CBS's miniscule budget or the fact that in and of itself CBS cares! At any rate, Kovacs was also a surrealist and whether consciously or not, Mr. Ferguson and his writers have used their budgetary restrictions to create characters and situations that can be described as Kovacsian. Without going into some long, boring and academically dry rundown of archiac knowledge about some comedian hardly anyone remembers or some other comedian that hardly anyone watches on TV, I'll point out three. These three always open up avenues to comedy and especially in the realm of late night talk shows, they are Kovacsian.

The gay robot skeleton sidekick, Geoff Peterson. Secretariat, who is not a horse. The band that never comes out from behind the curtain because they are too shy. And of course, "TV's Craig Ferguson". You will be missed, but as they used to say on "The Tonight Show", happy trails to you, to you all.

 

WHO AM I?

SARCASTIC WARNING: FOUL LANGUAGE HEREIN!


Gentle readers, I am a liberal, a leftist, a leftie, a progressive, a Wobblie, and fucking hell man, I've even voted for a few Democrats in my time. Yet, there is a problem. I'm not a conformist. And that has led to more than a few people giving me a quizzical once over when attempting to fit me in to their stereotype file cabinet.

Keeping in mind my first sentence, I'll tell you what fucks up people's perceptions by citing just a few issues (because I'm trying to keep this under 1,000 words). First example, Gun control. OMG, right? It's not that I don't think people should register their guns (like they do a car) or have a waiting period, but I do believe in the Bill of Rights. And right bloody there within is that damn pesky Second Amendment. The government should only be going as far as they have already when it comes to gun control, and when I speak out against certain proposed laws or (shudder) defend the idea that people should be able to own guns, then holy fucking cow, people think I might as well believe that the Earth is fucking flat!

Second example, the Earth is fucking flat. No, no, no! I don't believe that the Earth is fucking flat! I don't believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change, so I get compared to someone who believes the Earth is flat. I know, fucking crazy, right? What the bloody hell? And I'm talking about the Flat Earth Society, not that I don't believe in ACC. Strangely enough, the president of said organization believes in ACC. Dammit all! So, yes, here I am, this crazy "3%"-er who also has a 0.12 ton per year carbon footprint and is a progressive, too. Has it ever been done?

Lastly, well, shit, this might come in under 500 words, and you, gentle reader, are really getting your money's worth! Yes, you! You know, the one that gave so much money during my little donation drive? # Hashtag sarcasm. Have I digressed? Of that I am not sure. For the slings and arrows of outrageous, well holy jebus, are these the recently found words of the Great Bard or have I, once again, digressed? Lastly, yes, lastly, it was. Lastly, man landed on the moon. I actually believed that happened. However, you'd be surprised how many liberals, progressives, et al, think that the moon landings were faked and directed by Stanley Kubrick. I know, what the flying fuck indeed? They get so bent out of shape when confronted with such things as, say, oh maybe, film footage shot on the fucking moon, that before you can say, "Uncle", they want to ship you off to a prison camp or fine your ass until the sun don't no more shine there - oh fuck! That's what they say about us "3%"-ers. Ultra dammit! I get so bloody confused sometimes and why hasn't anyone refilled my drink?

So, irregardless, gentle reader, ha(!), see what I did there? Made you sorta say, "what the fuck"? "Irregardless"? Yeah, so, irregardless that I am a goddamm hippie, liberal, coke snorting, progressive, Marx reading so-and-so...I believe in rights and things (because those were just a few examples) that make others, sometimes, question my Commie Cred, ya dig?

(About The Awful: Rad leads an embittered existence somewhere between there and back again. His works of a previous depressing nature can berry and assorted vegetables at your local super market.) 

 

Donation Goal Reached!

A big and hearty thank you to all the people who donated money during the first ever donation drive for this blog. After starting last October, the modest donation goal of $525 has been reached! Again, thank you to all the folks who donated (you know who you are). To the 36,000+ other readers of this blog, well, I hope you have enjoyed the free reading.

 

Forget The First Amendment - Jail Climate Change Deniers!

More and more, Anthropogenic Climate Change proselytizers are resorting to calling for either death, jail or lawsuits for so-called ACC deniers. Think about that, it is a slippery slope indeed. The latest outcry for "justice" comes in the form of jail time and lawsuits for ACC deniers on the site Gawker in a "rant" penned by Adam Weinstein. He says, "it's time to punish the climate-change liars".

The author of this inflammatory piece relies heavily on an equally disingenuous article written by Lawrence Torcello who attempts to compare ACC deniers to the scientists convicted in Italy following a devastating earthquake. He points out these scientists were not convicted for manslaughter for failing to predict an earthquake, but for supposedly signing off on a government official's message that after studying a week's worth of tremors the situation looked favorable. This is a major apples and oranges argument to be sure. The scientists were corrupt as opposed to creating ACC models that don't measure up to observation, or conversely, speaking one's opinion that ACC is unlikely.

As I've mentioned before, this crazed idea about jailing and executions is not a new trend, but it does seem to be picking up more steam lately. There is a caveat to Weinstein's condemning "denialists" to, "face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics". The caveat includes a crudely drawn character, "I'm not talking about the man on the street who thinks Rush Limbaugh is right, and climate change is a socialist United Nations conspiracy foisted by a Muslim U.S. president on an unwitting public to erode its civil liberties. You all know that man. That man is an idiot." Nor does he want to jail, "scientists who must constantly hypo-test our existing assumptions about the world in order to check their accuracy". No, he wants lawsuits and jail for the corporate run denialists campaigns, but included in that he does list, "I'm talking about public persons...for whom denying a fundamental scientific fact is profitable...". There's that slippery slope, because with that remark he is talking about jailing me, and I don't take to being threatened with jail lightly.

For you see, since I've written a few blog posts on this site in which I make clear I don't believe in ACC, but conversely, do not say we should chuck every environmental law out the window, and my site has accepted donations and even makes a few nickels from advertising, yep, that's a threat of jail against me! That's the long haul when someone so blithely sweeps aside the pesky First Amendment. The author of the "rant" also uses some twisted logic by saying he's not stepping on anyone's First Amendment rights because the First Amendment is not absolute. He misstates the famous "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" to bolster his jailing ACC deniers argument. Actually, you can't falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. You see the difference?

The final egregious alarmist "statistic" that both he and Torcello use is the over 150,000 people die annually around the world because of ACC. Cripes! That does sound a bit bad. It comes from the reliable folks at the World Health Organization and upon closer examination, the 150,000 people that they claim die annually around the world from "climate change", actually die from weather related causes. Goodness knows I have been on the receiving end of that counter argument, "don't confuse climate with weather" on more than a few occasions. So, here, turnabout is fair play.

Do you really want to go down this slippery slope? Do you really want to jail so-called "deniers" because of what amounts to scientific dogma? Because when you preach the "debate on climate change is over", or the ever popular "97% of all scientists agree" to counteract an opinion or argument against the idea of ACC, you are being dogmatic when you start threatening with the tangibility of lawsuits, jail time and/or executions. If your faith or belief in ACC is so embedded in a bedrock of scientific observation, the notion of someone disagreeing with you should be no more than water rolling off of the duck's back.

Besides, these ranters are also making money off of ACC. So, is Al Gore. They should be thrown in jail using that logic. But they're not "deniers" so it is OK for them make a profit from ACC.
 

Race Hatred: THE Divisive Issue

I am compelled to write this not because of any recent event or publication, but because of the comment section for an article about melting snow in Detroit uncovering the frozen bodies of dogs. As reprehensible as it is to discover dozens of dead dogs, most of which were fighting dogs, dumped in a city's public park, that this story unleashed such a despicable and even more reprehensible tirade of unabashed race hatred is both illuminating and hopefully educational.

It is no secret that I believe America has devolved into a two party dictatorship which serves not the people but the elite. To give the illusion of a choice between two evils on any given ballot, certain "hot button" issues are constantly used to keep the People arguing amongst themselves over seemingly divisive issues. A short list of these issues include: abortion, religious intolerance, gun control, carbon taxes, crime and the greatest divisive issue of all, race hatred.

(Poster for the film, "The Birth Of A Nation")

It's 2014, folks, but reading the comments section of the "dead dogs" piece on the WWJ-TV, CBS affiliate website, will make you believe that it's 1915 and these people have just stepped out of a screening of "The Birth Of A Nation". How a story about dead dogs became a conduit for an outpouring of such vile race hatred I will leave for the reader to decide. Here is a small sampling of the comments (and there are over 500 of them at the time of this writing) because that is all that is necessary in this case. The comments range from the subtle to the explicit.

"It is the damn jungle with snow !!! The North American Pavement Ape is a wild feral animal !!! I'm not gonna say it again. This story would have been excellent if the melting snow revealed hundreds of these FERAL ANIMALS"

"13%. Dark skinned. Dumb. I like the dogs better, poor things. License these people (if indeed they are people); not the dogs."

"There are two types of black people. There are the respectable folks who are, LAW ABIDING, educated, mannerly, considerate, employed and who have legitimate children. This group is called Negros, but they seem to be few and far between. And then, there is the apparent majority of blacks who didn’t even finish high school, think the minimum wage should be a living wage, suck of the welfare system for generations, breed illegitimate children like rabbits, participate in flash mobs, steal, rape, are gang members, own illegal weapons, fight to buy expensive things they can’t afford, are very racist, play the “knockout game”, live in a dump, currently occupy OUR White House, “department of justice” and some seats in Congress.....these are the n i 99 e r s, most of whom never had a “daddy” to provide some guidance in life (includes “obama”)."

"This is Dee-troit. Animal Farm where savage primates murder and cause mayhem. They are the ones who should be "put down", not the dogs."

"Negroes doing what they do best."

We can pretend such vile hatred does not really exist or that it is merely the product of the anonymity that the internet provides, but we would only be fooling ourselves. Aside from the adroit use of this dividing issue on the American electorate by the politicians, we can at least be assured that race hatred is learned and often at a very young age, regardless of color. We can call out the politicians who use this issue and we can also call out the corporations and individuals who contribute to their campaigns as well. We must constantly be aware of such hatred and not hesitate for a moment to not only shame but perhaps educate. That may seem a bit pie-in-the-sky, but as compassionate human beings we have to start somewhere!

 

Remembering My Dad

Facebook pals and kids, you rarely like to be reminded of death. "Oh good grief", you say, "...please show us your latest lunch or dinner plate pix or whatever..."

 

 

Thirteen years ago, my Dad died. I will always remember those hours after I arrived at the hospital. All those memories, for good and bad. On both sides. I often wander into the corridors of my mind about what interesting conversations we would have had about the Bush/Obama regimes. "Oh, Rod!", the reader might think, "why must you always draw politics into such a...bla...bla...bla....". Well, it was politics which we often conversed about. For, how could we not?

 

This was a man who sat me down at the tender age of 13 and said I needed to watch these Watergate hearings on TV (ya know, back when government was actually a bit transparent). Not because it was so much historic, but because it was the exercising of Constitutional government, and he thought that was damn important and I should be a witness to it. And he was right! Although we talked years later about how Watergate was just a cover-up of the bigger cover-up (shhhh, JFK), I never really knew if he felt the same way. The point is, I wouldn't be such a rabble-rouser if it wasn't because of my Dad, even though if some you met him you'd think he be a bit conservative.

 

I was the third boy in the family he had to deal with and so my memories of him, today, deal mostly in that cloudy young adulthood and onto the later parts of my adulthood. As a writer, he was critical of a particular work, I recall. "Why must there be so many cuss words?", he asked. I said, "That's how people talk". And you know...I do not quite remember the rest of that conversation. And because I don't think it matters. He asked a question and that made me think, I remember that. Miss you Dad.

 

Comic KHAN!!!

The Wizard World Comic Con of 2014 recently breezed through Portland, Oregon and I have become aware of an increasing press blackout when it comes to speaking with the "celebrities" who routinely haunt these type of events. I was able to do an interview recently about this topic. Thanks to a frequent collaborator of mine, Eric Sloane, who was able to get a press pass to Comic Con, we can have a bit of an inside look at the machinations of $80 a pop signed photos and how speaking to any celebrity, big or small, is impossible.

Hello, Eric. Could you please give me your overview of Comic Con?

The Wizard World Comic Con is a highly successful show biz merchandising phenomenon. It promotes movies, comics, celebrity actors, writers and graphic artists and their products; movies, posters, comics, toys, games and costumes. It's a Halloween party plumped up like a Ball Park Frank that tours all year long in big cities across the country.

Interesting, but not surprising. When it comes to the matters of press and interviewing not only actors, but creators as well (e.g., Stan Lee), what were your observations and feelings?

Seeking celebrity interviews at the Comic Con was like walking into a chocolate shop and being told that you can look, but you can't have any. I contacted the Comic Con PR guy ahead of time, requesting three interviews: Stan Lee, William Shatner and Adam West. The PR guy assured me that I would not be given access to them as a reporter, nor would I be able to interview any of the other big name players in attendance, including Ron Pearlman, Sara Underwood, Bruce Campbell and Michael Rooker. However, I was welcome to pay to have a photo op with them, plus paying another fee if I wanted to get their autograph.

HEY! There Are Three Living Ex-Beatles, Not Two

2014 is an all year celebration of all things Beatle because it's the 50th anniversary of the group's conquering of America. Some false or misleading stories are bound to get unfortunate repeats in the coverage, however, it's curious that the media continue to claim (without embarrassment) that there are only two living ex-Beatles. I don't want to spoil the party, but there are actually three living ex-Beatles.

Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney, of course, are the people always cited as the "two living ex-Beatles"; but the band's original drummer, who was in the band for over two years is still alive, too, and his name is Pete Best. Probably nowhere in rock and roll history does the mere mention of one name, Pete Best, conjure up a synonym for unlucky. But, like most "reasons" given for Best's firing by The Beatles, thinking of Best as having the worst luck is too simplistic. Like it or not, Best was a member of The Beatles and that deserves his rightful place in history.

(1962, The Beatles (with Pete Best) pose for their first publicity photos wearing suits. Fair Use photo.)

The short story is that in 1960 while casting about (yet again) for a drummer, before an imminent gig in West Germany, John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison learned their friend had recently purchased a drum kit. They asked Best to join the group and he agreed. After numerous gigs and apparently on the brink of stardom, The Beatles' new manager, Brian Epstein, fired Best in August, 1962. Epstein was reluctant to do the job, but the others insisted because they had decided to replace Best with Ringo Starr. The other Beatles had played with Starr before on several gigs that Best had missed. Whether or not Best was not as good a drummer as Starr is a moot point because for the sound The Beatles were creating (read: Lennon/McCartney) Starr was the drummer they believed suited it best (if you'll pardon the pun).

"We were cowards when we sacked him", Lennon said later. "We made Brian do it. But if we'd told Pete to his face, that would have been much nastier. It would have probably ended in a fight." Fight or no, out of guilt, Epstein put Best into his own band, which, of course, never gained any traction. By 1965, he was so depressed he attempted suicide, only to be saved by his brother. Although it took time, Best lost his bitterness toward his ex-band mates, and after a career in civil service, he got back behind the drums, where he seems pretty happy today.

(A recent photo of Pete Best. Reprinted under Fair Use.)

When The Beatles released their Anthology Vol. 1 album, many of the songs that Pete Best drummed on, rehearsal tapes, demos and even the EMI audition, were included. Were The Beatles who were still alive in 1995 finally owning up to some guilt? Doubtful, as they obvious made the correct decision in 1962, even though they didn't handle it well. More likely, it was a way of (finally) paying Best back some of his due for the over two years he was their drummer. So, cheers to you, one of the three living ex-Beatles!
 

The Top 10 Greatest Acting Performances That Didn't Recieve An Academy Award Nomination

Whenever a top ten list comes around proclaiming the "10 Greatest This" or the "10 Best That" it is most of the time subjective. Sometimes the subjective nature of such lists can be a springboard into a thoughtful and friendly debate, although in the anonymity of the internet that subjectivity can lead to ridicule and personal attacks. With these positive and negatives in mind, I'm willing present a list of the top 10 greatest acting performances which were not nominated for an Academy Award.

These actors and actresses are presented here in alphabetical order, followed by the film title, date, the role played and what category the performer should have been nominated for. Please note all photos are reprinted under Fair Use.

1. JEAN ARTHUR - MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939) - SAUNDERS - ACTRESS
The mark of a great performance is to take the written character who undergoes a significant transformation during the course of a story and make it completely believable to the audience. Jean Arthur was an established comedienne by the time she did this film and her transformation as Saunders is remarkable to behold as it encompasses not only the comedic elements but also the pathos and emotional dramatics as well. It is entirely unexpected that her portrayal of the hard boiled, cynical but wise character we see early on in the film becomes as idealistic and embracing of happiness as the Mr. Smith character by the end. Like so many before her and after, this difficult performance was wholly ignored by the awards.

2. MARY ASTOR - THE MALTESE FALCON (1941) - BRIGID O'SHAUGHNESSY - ACTRESS
Although "film noir" as a genre had not been named by the time of the release of this film, the film itself is certainly an early example of it and Mary Astor's portrayal of Brigid O'Shaughnessy was one of the screen's greatest femme fatales. But, that didn't stop her performance from being overlooked by the Academy Awards. I still get goose bumps when Brigid finally figures out that Sam Spade is indeed going to send her over for the murder of his partner. In fact, Astor's work on this film in nothing short of astonishing as she goes from one extreme to another in the hopelessness of securing not only some amount of love but also the Maltese Falcon itself.

3. RAY BOLGER - THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939) - THE SCARECROW/HUNK - SUPPORTING ACTOR
Besides roles in horror films, the Academy Awards has also been notorious for ignoring roles in fantasy or comedy films as well. Ray Bolger and his characterization of The Scarecrow were no exceptions. It is not only the empathy that Bolger projects, but the sure exuberance of his performance that continues to delight audiences to this very day. As with any great performance in this vein, his moments of quiet emotions are certainly stand-outs as well.

4. SCATMAN CROTHERS - THE SHINING (1980) - DICK HALLORANN - SUPPORTING ACTOR
Nowhere in filmdom are characterizations so seemingly easy to dismiss than in horror, usually because of perceived bombastic or overblown acting styles. Scatman Crothers and his nuanced performance as Dick Hallorann give a great lie to such easy and ignorant stereotypes. At once so easy going and as suddenly grave and serious, Crothers' work in this film is a sight to behold. He projects the easy going with his tour of the hotel and it's inner workings, as it were, and the sudden seriousness when he calmly, but forcibly has his little chat with the child about the 'shine'. I also like his scene where his concerns about what might be going on at the hotel cause him to make a worried call and then travel up the mountain in the snow.

5. RUBY DEE - DO THE RIGHT THING (1989) - MOTHER SISTER - SUPPORTING ACTRESS
In a film that is filled with great non-nominated performances, Ruby Dee's is certainly a stand out. Mother Sister knows the daily workings of the neighborhood, but like so many others, she is unable to prevent the final conflagration. She goes from seemingly all-knowing to seemingly knowing nothing. Her deft performance is like watching a high wire act as it is subtle and thrilling at the same time. Like all the other performers on this list you can tell she is having a great time.

6. DWIGHT FRYE - DRACULA (1931) - RENFIELD - SUPPORTING ACTOR
Dwight Frye almost had two listings here because his performance in "Frankenstein" (1931) is also astounding. As Renfield, he enlivens a sometimes rather dull tale told of the vampire Count Dracula. Those of you who may only be familiar with his manic performances may be surprised by how he shades his characterization in the early part of the film. Renfield is there to do his job and has a carefree attitude about traveling in a rather foreboding foreign country. He finds the local superstitions marvelously quaint which makes his transformation to terror all the more shocking and believable. Hollywood vastly underutilized this actor who then died at an early age before his career could get back on track.

7. KATY JURADO - HIGH NOON (1952) - HELEN RAMIREZ - SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Katy Jurado may be the most underrated actress on this list, a woman whose name you don't recognize but whose face you do. She takes what could be a thankless second banana role to Grace Kelly's character and imbues it with a stunning variety of emotions. Her character is fascinating to watch during her interactions with Kelly and especially the character played by Gary Cooper. Jurado seems to effortlessly come across as a badass with a tenderness just simmering underneath.

8. CANADA LEE - BODY AND SOUL (1947) - BEN CHAPLIN - SUPPORTING ACTOR
Canada Lee was a performer who did not want to conform to the Hollywood standard of the time concerning stereotypical black characters. Hollywood in 1947 was also not ready for a leading black man in a movie that wasn't a musical. Hence, Lee played a second fiddle part to leading man John Garfield. Yet, he played it so well! As an ex-boxer himself, Lee was used as a technical advisor, too. His performance as Ben is a subtle reworking of the usual clichés associated with such a character. Indeed, like many of his performances on film, he displays a depth of feeling rarely seen at the time.

9. EMILE MEYER - SHANE (1953) - RYKER - SUPPORTING ACTOR
Long time character actor, Emile Meyer, is a stand out as the villain Ryker in this tale of ranchers versus sodbusters. He gives his character an emotional variety not often seen in a typical western villain. At one point, you kind of find yourself on his side of the argument, that is until he lets the worst parts of his personality take over his soul. With his wild shock of white hair and beard he looks every bit the bad guy, but then those unexpected touches of pathos make Meyer's characterization thoroughly remarkable.

10. ROBERT WALKER - STRANGERS ON A TRAIN (1951) - BRUNO ANTHONY - ACTOR
In his penultimate film appearance before his untimely death at the age of 32, Robert Walker gives his finest performance. Absolutely dripping with contempt for humanity, Walker nonetheless also conveys the requisite used car salesman techniques to ensnare Farley Ganger's character into his mad, but brilliant murder plan. Like a slow train wreck, you can't take your eyes off Walker, he is just so compelling. Juicy villain roles are not always overlooked by the Academy Awards, but for some odd reason, Walker's greatest triumph was ignored.

 

Top Ten Blog Posts Of 2013

It's that time of year again where Americans gather around the computer to check out the top ten lists for the year. Here are the top ten blog posts for Random Thoughts Of A Random Guy From A Random Place Up In The Sky for 2013. This blog is now 2 and-a-half years old and I've written nearly 100 posts in that time. Unlike last year, only one post on this list was written the year previous, and just barely. Based on the number of reads (or hits), here is the list you have been waiting for:

1. "Dead Sandy Hook Elementary School Principal Interviewed By Local Paper About Shooting"
After a slow start, this post became quite popular, being number one for several weeks and just beating the number two post by a single read. The official report on the shooting does nothing to clear up this bizarre story, in fact, it doesn't mention it at all.

2. "The Pesky Bill Of Rights"
The way the government has been reacting, these rights are certainly being damned pesky.

3. "Announcing The First Ever Donation Drive"
Circumstances beyond my control forced me to go hat in hand on the internet in an attempt to raise $525. $325 was raised over 3 months, but that extra would still go a long way to alleviating some trauma. Won't you be an angel and help?

4. "President Obama Warns Students To Reject Voices Regarding Government Tyranny The Day After Kent State Massacre Anniversary"
Apparently, only Obama and the sheep he was speaking to missed the irony of this low moment of the year.

5. "George W. Bush - Artist"
Some of former president George W. Bush's paintings were "accidently" released on-line (yeah, right, whatever) and in this post I became an art critic (and why not?).

6. "Michael Hastings, The Car Crash & The Autopsy Report"
After moving to Los Angeles late in 2012, this story became one of the strangest and, at times, most heatedly debated of the entire year. So far, Mercedes has not backed down on their claim that their cars do not explode.

7. "ROBERT F. KENNEDY - The Most Obvious Conspiracy"
The 45th anniversary of RFK's assassination prompted this piece which shows how obvious was this conspiracy and cover-up in that shooting.

8. "Michael Hastings Fiery Car Crash: The Tale Of Two Cars & Disinformation"
Even I make mistakes sometimes and am willing to admit it. This post still supplies perceptions shared by even Mainstream Media (MSM) reporters.

9. "Mass Manipulation - Too Many Gunmen At The Sandy Hook Shooting"
This tragic event was subjected to a variety of disinformation campaigns that nearly boggle the mind. Instead of being boggled, here was an attempt to look at the usual script used once again (if it ain't broke why fix it?).

10. "Gilligan's Island - An Appreciation"
One of my longest blog posts ever was one of the most fun to write. I'm glad it made the top ten.
 

WARNING! Lone Terrorist Threatens World!

WARNING!

Lone terrorist threatening the world! NORAD has reported that the terrorist left his base at the North Pole several hours ago, flying first over the former Soviet Union, dropping large packages in everyone's homes.

These packages, according to the Homeland Security Agency, are obviously bombs! The terrorist is now flying toward the United States eastern seaboard; there is nothing NORAD can do; protect yourselves and your children!!!

Here is the NORAD link.

United Nations Scientists Don't Know As The World Turns

AUTHOR'S NOTE:
An upcoming blog article will go into the details of why I changed my mind; that mankind does contribute to the climate change. I know that may leave some of you in a bit of a shock, unless you have followed me on Facebook. It happened shortly after my cancer surgery [see the many articles about that located herein]. I've decided to leave these articles as is.


I will say at the outset, that the environmental laws that most countries on Earth have passed over the past decades are actually having some results in cleaner water and cleaner air. A cause for some celebration is met with a fairly muted response from those who push the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) agenda. I'm all for protecting the environment whether through individual actions or laws but not at the expense of an agenda that calls for more taxation on an already tax burdened population.

The vitriol I often encounter from ACCers is because although I do believe the climate is changing (and has always been changing), I don't believe mankind causes it. That being said, the latest video released thanks to funding from the United Nations is a real eye opener. Using many layered animation, the video, "Climate Change - The State Of The Science", features a view of the Earth from space as time elapsed graphics show what's in store for our planet if we don't do anything about climate change. As I stated before, this sort of alarmism ignores the fact that some environmental laws have worked and cleaner water and air is noticeable. The doomsday statistics about ACC are spewed forth in a production funded by the United Nations and made by International Geosphere-Biosphere and Globaia with input by many scientists and advisors whose very credibility falls apart within the first few seconds of the video because of a huge flaw!

The Earth does not rotate on its axis to the west! Yes, it's true! The sun does not rise in the west and set in the east. I don't even need to cite any sources about that! It's called observation: the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, therefore, the Earth rotates on its axis to the east.

The scientists, advisors, writers, directors, animation effects department and so forth had to have watched this sequence while building it hundreds if not thousands of times. Not one of them noticed a basic fact of nature! Yet, we are then supposed to trust the models these scientists create and endorse to show us how man has caused and is causing near irreparable harm to the climate. And if we don't start charging people a carbon tax then we are doomed - doomed! Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.

GILLIGAN'S ISLAND - An Appreciation

Fifty years ago this month, shooting began on the original pilot of "Gilligan's Island", created and produced by Sherwood Shwartz. Filmed in Hawaii (with the last day of shooting falling on November 22nd, 1963), the pilot was bought by CBS-TV for inclusion on it's Fall, 1964 schedule. Casting changes for three of the characters/actors resulted in very little of the original pilot footage being used for the series proper. From this inauspicious beginning, a cultural phenomenon was created, although none of the cast, crew or producers knew it at the time.




(From left to right: Alan Hale, Bob Denver, Tina Louise, Jim Backus, Natalie Schafer, Dawn Wells and Russell Johnson. All photos under Fair Use)

Despite strong ratings, "Gilligan's Island" was cancelled after only three seasons*, but it has remained in reruns on television worldwide to this very day. The characters of Gilligan and his fellow castaways are icons and the theme song is instantly recognizable to many people across a wide range. For those who do not know, or need a reminder, the premise of the series was simple: take seven people of varying backgrounds and strand them on a deserted island. The plots revolved around two basic themes: getting the hell off the island or surviving some impending catastrophe whether real or imagined.

The stranding of the seven castaways came about after their "three hour tour" was interrupted by a raging storm. The series featured a strong and talented cast starring Bob Denver as Gilligan, Alan Hale, Jr. as The Skipper, Jim Backus as Thurston Howell III, Natalie Schafer as "Lovey" Howell, Tina Louise as Ginger Grant, Russell Johnson as The Professor and Dawn Wells as Mary Ann. Occasionally a "guest star" would drop in on the island (for whatever outlandish reason) or a wonderfully written "dream sequence" was added to a plot to spice things up.

Although Schwartz pitched his series to network executives as a microcosm of society, it was always intended to be played as a broad comedy. The characters of Gilligan and The Skipper were also intended to be an homage to the great comedy team of Laurel and Hardy, as well as representing the bumbling first mate and his loyal leader. The millionaire reprentatives of society were, of course, Mr. Howell, and his wife, Lovey, while Ginger was the Hollywood starlet wannabe; brains and critical thinking in the form of The Professor and lastly, but certainly not least, Mary Ann as the sweet Kansas farm girl next door.

LAX Shooter Had Anti-"New World Order" Papers In His Bag

Just when you thought you could let another in a continuing series of high profile shootings go by, comes word that the latest lone gunman had anti-government propaganda in his conveniently left behind bag. Among the items were references to the New World Order. Now, CBS News, itself a mouthpiece for the New World Order, has its "consultant", John Miller (former head of counter-intelligence for the LAPD of course), actually say that people who believe in the New World Order are conspiracy nut jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGgg6dhxtnw

Miller calls the concern about the New World Order, "a growing conspiracy group". Mr. Miller, have you been hiding in a cave the last twenty or so years? As can be seen in the video clips listed below, the idea of the New World Order is not new and has been espoused by some very important American people over the years. So, it is very interesting that CBS and other MSM outlets are making it seem like the New World Order is some new, frightening thing that some nut job conspiracy theorist used as an excuse to kill and injure people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eg-rd3bQPQ

 

Climate Change Deniers Should Be Executed!!!

AUTHOR'S NOTE:

An upcoming blog article will go into the details of why I changed my mind; that mankind does contribute to the climate change. I know that may leave some of you in a bit of a shock, unless you have followed me on Facebook. It happened shortly after my cancer surgery [see the many articles about that located herein]. I've decided to leave these articles as is.

(Flat earth - used under fair use)

It saddens me, really, that whenever I bring up the fact that I don't believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) I'm met with ridicule and derision. It doesn't seem to matter that I think we as a society should be doing more to protect the environment or that the laws we have in some instances have led to reductions in damage to the environment. No, it is far easier to deride and obfuscate than to have anything even resembling a decent debate. They think I believe the Earth is flat, or the Holocaust didn't happen, or I'm a agent of the Koch brothers, or...well, you get the idea. It's easier to ignore that both sides of the debate have an agenda and that more often than not that agenda is to poison the well or it is money. That alone should raise red flags, but if that even goes against rigid thought, ad hominum is the usual tactic. And after all is said and done, no one has ever wrote anything like, "here is what we can do to help protect the environment". Apparently, that thought can not cross a rigid mind.

So, I'll ask the question (again): what can we do as governments and individuals to continue to protect the one thing we DO have in common, the environment? Individually here are only a few things (research for more):
-Stop your littering
-If you don't need to use your car, use mass transit
-Turn off your lights if you're not using them
-Don't run your air conditioning with windows open; and run it no lower than 74 degrees
-Don't run your heat with windows open; and run it no higher than 68 degrees
-Don't use a leaf blower
-Don't use a gas powered lawn mower
-If you can walk to your destination than do so
-If you can work from home than do so
-Don't leave your computer on 24/7
-Dispose of hazardous materials correctly
 

Governments can do many things, but one thing they shouldn't do is burden the individual with more taxes. Burden the corporations that damage the environment (and we know who they are) with more taxes most certainly. Governments here are only a few things (research for more and write to your representatives [you do write to them, right?]):
-Strengthen laws that protect the water we drink
-Strengthen laws that protect our rivers, lakes and oceans from pollution
-Strengthen laws that protect our air
-Strengthen laws against the use of hazardous materials in our products which are obviously harmful to people (especially children and the elderly)
-Pass laws that really do punish corporations that recklessly harm our environment (I'm looking at you BP and Exxon)
-Pass laws that require polluting corporations to meet certain obvious standards of safety

Whether or not you believe in ACC or not, just adopting the idea that we are stewards of our environment is a no brainer.
P.S., I still have not received a reply from my U.S. senators regarding my concerns about the Fukushima disaster and what is being done to protect the environment. That's too bad, because Fukushima will haunt us all if something is not done.

Michael Hastings, The Car Crash & The Autopsy Report

Two months after the fatal car crash that apparently took the life of journalist Michael Hastings, the autopsy report has finally been released. In the report, the toxicology screen revealed that Hastings had trace amounts of marijuana and an amphetamine in his system which were both ingested several hours before the crash and were not contributing factors to the so-called accident. Predictably, the Mainstream Media (MSM) pounced on these trace amounts in their headlines essentially to make Hastings a meth head in the eyes of the public and tamp down the many inconsistencies in the official story. Indeed, the release of the autopsy report, coupled with previously released witnesses accounts and videos, makes these many inconsistencies even more glaring and the obvious "blame the victim" meme even more disturbing. The autopsy report mentions the discovery of two empty alcoholic bottles "near" the crash site not once, but twice, even though the report states there was no alcohol in his blood.

The coroner is making his conclusions based on the theory that the decedent was involved in a high speed crash with a "fixed object" (the palm tree). The coroner states that all burns to the body were postmortem, all on the left side, with extensive charring of the head and upper left chest and back and that all fractures on the left side were thermal fractures, also postmortem. This means he was dead before the fire consumed the passenger compartment; with the coroner establishing near instantaneous death due to "massive blunt force trauma" consistent with the sudden deceleration caused by a car hitting a fixed object at high speed.

I stated that the coroner's conclusions were based on a theory because of a restaurant surveillance video that was finally released more than four weeks after the crash. It shows the car was traveling at a speed of about 35 mph and that there are two distinct explosions before the car comes to a stop, when a third and largest explosion takes place. The distance between the restaurant camera and the point of the car stopping is about 200 feet. The time between the car next to the camera and the point of the car stopping is 4 seconds. This results in a speed of about 35 mph. The posted speed on Highland is 35 mph.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY - The Most Obvious Conspiracy

(A mortally wounded Senator Robert F. Kennedy asks if "everyone else is alright?". Photo through Fair Use.)

After midnight on June 5th, 1968, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who had just won the California Democratic Primary, was walking through the kitchen pantry of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, having just gave a victory speech, when he was felled by assassin's bullets. The official narrative of this assassination is fairly cut and dried. Sirhan Sirhan, an apparently disgruntled 24 year old Palestinian Arab, emptied his .22-caliber revolver from in front the approaching Kennedy and was still firing as he was tackled by onlookers. There was a trial, Sirhan's defense team stipulated to his guilt and he has spent the last 45 years in jail. Below is a video of RFK's press secretary, Frank Mankiewicz, announcing the Senator's death.

This New York Times article from June 6th, 1968, pretty much sums up the Mainstream Media (MSM) official version of events with a remarkable lack of contradictions for early reporting. So, how is the assassination of RFK the obvious conspiracy? Because the eyewitnesses and the autopsy report totally contradict the official version. It's not even close.

Confessions Of A Boston Baked Bomber

by Dzzhochar Tsarnova

Ha Ha! I have the simpleton infidels right where I want them. Through my brilliant machinations, which I will explain further, the Great Satan will be brought down to his knees! Although I may not have died a martyr like my brother, Tamerlamershammalamma, who now enjoys the inexperience of over 70 virgins in the great Valhalla, no wait, dammit(!), well, you know what I mean infidel...here in the world of the living I'm enjoying the adoration of more teenage girls than Justin Bieber. Ahahahaha, life is good for me!

To think, our revenge against the infidels of Boston began just over a month ago, and the story your government keeps spinning makes it difficult for a world-renowned terrorist, such as myself,  to even try to keep up. But, I will!

(Here I am during my Bob Dylan phase. Yes, the times they are a-changing.)

It all began innocently enough when my brother and I were shopping at the local mass quantity warehouse store and spotted some rather fetching pressure cookers. On the spur of the moment we bought six of them. Once home we went immediately to the internet to learn how to make...bombs out of them! HaHa! Not only that, you putrid infidels, we decided to take them to the Boston Marathon. However, before we left, we had one too many tokes and forgot the bombs and wound up carrying schoolbooks in our backpacks! Bah! It did not matter. Our cleric had called us to meet him at 666 Bolyston (yes, infidel, 666, bwahahahahaha!!!!!) and we were standing and standing around waiting for the guy. Then, BOOM, BOOM. We then understood our place in this attack and got the freaking infidel outta there!

President Obama Warns Students To Reject Voices Regarding Government Tyranny The Day After Kent State Massacre Anniversary

On May 5th, 2013, the day after the 43rd anniversary of the Kent State, Ohio Massacre, President Obama, speaking at Ohio State University, warned graduating students to "reject" voices that exclaim tyranny in government is "just around the corner". I'll be happy to wait a moment as you read that again. As there is no coincidence in politics, Obama's address against the "voices" and when and where it was given in Ohio is more than a bit significant.

(Before the shooting with tear gas in the air - photographer unknown - added under fair use)

Here is the top representative of our government telling us not fear the government. "Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems", the President said with a straight face. For this statement is, without the pejorative "unfortunately", quite correct. But, then the President spins this away from rightful questioning of tyranny in government by saying that, "(Y)ou should reject these voices", because, "they suggest", our, "unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted". No, these "voices" are more concerned with rescuing our unique experiment from the clutches of the military/industrial complex, or corporation-as-people, that control it now.

How very fitting that the President gave this warning in a state that saw the ugly result of government tyranny in death, blood and gore. A state from which petitions to Obama's own Justice Department rejected not voices, but any reopening of the Kent Sate shooting case. Kent State, where on May 4th, 1970, National Guard Troops killed 4 students and injured 9 more in a barrage of gunfire that when reading contemporaneous reports echo many of today's start and stop reporting of major events. But when you read the New York Times article on the massacre (none of the students were armed) you read good ol' fashioned journalism as the article reports "official" versions of events that were augmented by the reporter stating what he saw which, not surprisingly, contradicted official reports.

(National Guard Troops fire upon unarmed civilians at Kent State - photo by John A. Darnell -  added under fair use)

Also, like Obama in excusing his drone strikes that kill civilians, the President at the time, Richard Nixon, in his official statement about the Kent State Massacre, played the blame the victim card. "This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy". Even 43 years ago, the usual machinations were in place. There were early reports that the Guard Troops fired after sniper fire, which was totally contradicted by not only witnesses at the scene but also by that pesky reporter. "This reporter, who was with the group of students, did not see any indication of sniper fire". Yep, the more things change the more they remain the same. The protest was not as overtly violent as Nixon suggested. The protesters were throwing rocks at the troops and their tear gas canisters back at the troops. Yep, that is pretty violent when facing down armed troops. However, in the context of the times, with college campus protests almost the norm, we today forget that there was a tacit understanding that most of the time the troop's guns were loaded with blanks. Yes, I know, crazy! Apparently, kids from 1970 were just as naive about what they faced as are the kids from today who blithely sat through President Obama's warning to not listen to the voices of dissent.

FOOD STAMPS - Come To My Door With Your Torches And Pitchforks!

One of the stranger divisive issues to enter American politics recently is the one where people on food stamps should not also buy, with their own money, booze and, gasp (!) tobacco. Newsflash! The sanctimonious blowhards who perpetuate this argument are being completely disingenuous because you can't buy booze or tobacco with food stamps! Get it? They are called food stamps.

Here's the quick story: I pay taxes. A few times over my life I have qualified for food stamps - like right now. Without it, I'd be homeless. Homelessness, we may agree, is a much bigger burden on our welfare system. Some wags will say that the poor should be careful with their "discretionary" income all the while ignoring the enormous burden place upon tax payers by the corporate welfare state. Newsflash #2! The rich are being subsidized by the tax payers. That's why they have lawyers and lobbyists.

So, the rich can party but not the poor? Because some people need assistance from us, the tax payers, they should continue to remove more joyousness from their lives? How does that work into the "happiness" part of the Constitution? Like, "sorry family, we're on food stamps and Christmas is cancelled", or "no birthday for Billy", or "if you want to watch a movie, go to the neighbors", or "well, time to get rid of our pets".

I'll say it again: it is all about housing and corporate welfare! The government has said that housing should account for no more than one-third of monthly income. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but the actual amount is 50% or more, an especial burden for the poor. So, should I be able to buy booze or tobacco with my hard earned money? You bet! We tax payers subsidize the rich through a vast array of resources for them. Know what? They buy booze, too.