Followers of the Musings...
In an article on CNN.COM referencing the Labor Strikes in Greece, an anonymous commenter posted the following... BradK would like to, as well as speak in the third person, endorse these ideas to the fullest. Please read this comment entitled "Food for Thought"
*********************************************************************
Here is some food for thought. Can we as individuals, as a society and as a country do much better if we did the following?
(1) PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
a. As a teenager, each one of us should be personally responsible for listening to our parents, for focusing our energies on our studies, for taking care of our health, for keeping out of trouble, and for developing our moral character. It is during our early childhood and teenage years that the foundations of our lives are built, and it is important that each one of us builds the right foundation. A lot of our social problems today have roots in lack of sufficient and proper education, lack of marketable skills, poor personal habits that result in poor health, and a weak moral fiber.
b. As a working adult, each one of should be responsible for working hard, being productive, and saving for our futures. Each one of us needs to be ambitious, work hard, work smart, and be entrepreneurial. Ensure that you earn more than you spend. Spending is most of the time in your control. Moderate it to levels that you can comfortably afford. Invest wisely. Build a nest egg for your rainy day, for your retirement, for your children’s education, and for your parents’ care.
c. When married, each one of us should be responsible to our spouses. Make a commitment to somebody else only when you are sure you want to spend the rest of your life with the other person. A lot of social ills today can be traced back to broken families. Every successful relationship requires give and take. Make sure you find the right middle ground with your spouse.
d. As a parent, each one of us should be responsible to and for our children. If we cannot be fully responsible to our children, then it is a shame to have them. And if you cannot be even partially responsible for the costs of your children, then we should not have them. As a parent it is our responsibility to personally provide early childhood education at home. You don’t need a school to teach your children ABCs and 123s. Children learn fast when they are taught early. Stop expecting the government, i.e. your neighbors, to pay for your children’s education. K-12 education in parochial schools can cost as little as $500/month. Cut back a little on your lifestyle, forego eating outside if necessary, but pay some part of your child’s education even if you cannot pay the entire amount. Save up for your child’s college through tax-free plans. Encourage your children to save up the money that they make in their summer jobs for their education. You will be successful in doing this if you have taught them the right values. The value of education, the value of money, the value of self-help, the value of having good habits in life and the value of a strong moral character. And you can teach them these values only by living those values yourself in your lives. You have to lead by example. If you don’t want your child to smoke, drink, waste money or party late nights, make sure you do not do the same.
e. As an older adult, each one of us should be responsible to our parents. It is time for us to repay them for the sacrifices that they made for us during their lifetimes. Do not forsake your parents when they need you. Living with your parents is not ‘uncool’. Taking responsibility for them and providing shelter for them is the right thing to do. If your parents need your help, and if you are not wealthy enough to pay for separate accommodations for them, then bring them into your house and enjoy living with them. Do not let them become charitable cases. It is a shame on you if your parents are totally dependent on some charitable organizations or the government, i.e. your neighbors, through section 8 housing and social security checks. Having your parents with you has a lot of benefits. Grandparents are a great influence on your children. They can help you in bringing up your children and reduce or eliminate your childcare costs. They can take over some home responsibilities and give you more time to go out and earn more.
f. As a grandparent, each one of us should be responsible to ourselves, and to our children and grandchildren. Make sure you spend your retirement nest egg carefully, and to the maximum extent you can, live within those means. Be gracious in accepting help from your children. It is better your children help you rather than neighbors and strangers. If it is possible for you to do so, help out your children by taking care of their kids. You are a great influence on the grandchildren. Help the parents in bringing up your grandchildren as good productive citizens.
g. Take good care of your health throughout your life. It is the biggest wealth you will have. Healthcare is not about just going to doctors and hospitals. Healthcare is about each one of us eating right, exercising right, sleeping right and living right. Abusing our bodies with junk food, overeating, smoking, drinking, drugs, lack of sleep, and lack of exercise will invariably lead to bad health, no matter what type of doctors and hospitals the nation provides.
h. Throughout our lives, continue to educate ourselves. Education does not stop with a bachelor’s degree… and definitely not with just a high school degree. Times change, technology changes, business environment and opportunities change and life changes. It is the responsibility of each and every one to continue to educate ourselves (not necessarily get additional degrees) to acquire new skills that will make us more productive and more valuable in the marketplace.
(2) SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
a. As business managers and business leaders, make sure we do right by not only our investors but also by our community and our country.
b. Be generous. According to your individual capabilities, without unduly burdening yourself, contribute to good charitable organizations that help the poor through programs that promote education, jobs, health etc. Your contributions could be in the form of your money, time, or talent.
c. Pay your fair share of taxes. Even a person making only $1000/month can pay $10/month and get the satisfaction that they contributed towards building our nation. If you feel the tax structure is not fair, then through our democratic process elect officials who will make it fair.
d. Look for waste and abuse in our government and in our communities, and shine the light of truth on them. Bring them to the attention of the larger public and work towards eliminating them.
e. Lead or participate in causes that is close to your heart, and are for the larger good of the community, your country and your world.
(3) PRINCIPLES AND HABITS
a. The principles that you lead your life by are very important. Universal morals and truths should drive our principles. Come up with a set of principles that your conscience can comfortably live with, and live by those principles. In formulating your principles, please remember to treat others as you would want them to treat you.
b. Everybody’s principles are not the same. We have to live harmoniously in our society and country. Therefore learn the art of compromising in coming to agreements that affect the entire society. Don’t try to impose your principles on others through force or through the power of the government. A majority imposing its principles on the minority will lead to unrest.
c. Humans are creatures of habits. Habits in turn make you successful or a failure in what you do. Identify the habits that will make you successful at work and in your personal life and inculcate those habits.
(4) ENTREPRENEURISM
a. Even if you are working for some company and not for your own business, always think and act like an entrepreneur. Think of it as your own business, and put your pride, passion, talent and energy into it with full gusto. You will be well rewarded for it.
b. Cast away the ‘employee’ attitude. Truly care for your company and your colleagues. If you start thinking like an owner of the company, you will soon become one.
c. Look for ways to innovate, be cost-effective, more productive and to gain a competitive edge. This is what will make you successful as an employee, as an executive or as a business owner.
d. Be entrepreneurial and see how quickly your future will be in your own hands.
(5) GOVERNANCE
a. Self-govern. Make sure you do what is expected of you and more at work. Make sure you do what is expected of you and more in your society.
b. Governance is a necessary expense. But it does not have to be a hugely burdensome expense to us. If more people in a company govern themselves, the company will become more competitive and successful. If more of us in this society govern ourselves and live by the laws, and if more of us take care of ourselves, then the cost of governance and government will come down. Unless we do that, we will continue to have increasing costs of governance and government, to a point where it is no longer sustainable.
(6) ENTITLEMENTS
a. Know that ‘none’ of us are entitled to anything. If you feel you are ‘entitled’ to something, you are fooling yourself. Others will only give lip sympathy to you and your entitlement attitude will get you nowhere other than the bottom of the social ladder.
b. Entitlements are a disincentive for hard work and progress. If each of us felt that we are entitled to receive a section 8 home and a charity check through the courtesy of the government, i.e. our neighbors, then where is the incentive to work and succeed?
c. Accept the entitlements you receive with gratitude, and strive to get off of the entitlement rolls ASAP through your motivation and work. Remember living off of entitlements is not better than being a beggar. Somebody else is paying for your keep.
(7) MYTHS
a. That politicians will solve our problems, or will tell us the truth. They will mainly do the things that will get them elected and reelected. How many of them have had the guts to tell the American people that we are causing our health care crisis by our own profligate behavior? How many of them have told us that we should be primarily responsible for our own children, and that government is not the one that should be primarily responsible for the welfare of our kids?
b. That the government will take care of us from cradle to grave. We the people are the government. We have to take care of ourselves. All our entitlements programs are stretched thin.
(8) YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
a. Yes you can make a difference. If each one of us starts taking personal responsibility for our lives, our society will soon change dramatically. Remember little drops of water makes a mighty ocean.
b. Don’t be distracted or upset by others who are not taking responsibility for themselves. Lead by example. Soon others will also come around. It takes only one lit candle to light a million other candles. Be the source of light for others.
c. Be kind and sympathetic to those that are less fortunate. Help them light their own candles so that they can also become a source of light for others.
d. Change the lazy and irresponsible by being a role model for them to emulate. Bring them towards responsible ways through your leadership.
e. Make your company, your community, your country and your world better off because of your actions. Measure your self-worth by what you do for others and what you build.
(9) TRUTH
a. Whether you like it or not, in a poker game and in life, you have to play with the cards you are dealt with. Remember that the cards you are dealt with initially are not the ones that you will end up with in life. There are thousands of rags to riches stories, and likewise riches to ashes stories as well. Where you will end up in life has less to do with what you were dealt with initially in life, and more to do with what you personally make out of life.
b. It matters not how much you accumulate in your life. At the end of our lives, all of us take with us the same amount, which is absolutely zero. What matters is how you have lived your life and if you are happy and content during your life. Happiness and contentment has less to do with what we have and more to do with who we are. Happiness and contentment come from within and not from outside.
c. You are loved by others for who you are and not for what you have. You may have a lot of ‘friends’ who flock around you during fair weather. But are they really friends?
d. You will be remembered for what you do for others and not for how much you made for yourself. Do you personally care for somebody who is rich, or do you personally care for somebody who is good to you? Were Mother Teresa, Gandhi and Martin Luther King rich? Does not humanity admire Bill Gates more after he gave away his billions to charitable causes?
24 February 2010
23 February 2010
The Official Kevin Costner Movie Run Down
Hey everybody. I stayed up late last night to watch Field of Dreams on the CMT channel (which, despite it being an HD channel, presented the movie in the woefully inept SD format with the "side bars" and also put commercials in at the MOST inappropriate times, like for example, just after he realizes his dad is the catcher (at the end) and before his man-cry moment where he says "Hey... Dad? Wanna have a catch?"
BAD CMT!!! BAD!!!
Anyways, it inspired me, twas my Muse perhaps, to give a run down on KC's movies.
Let's start waaay back at the beginning with the help of IMDB to make sure I catch everything... Actually, we'll be starting with the earliest Kostner film I have seen and work from there. Cuz if I haven't seen it, I don't care.
Silverado (1985)
Ah cowboys. Ah. Cowboys. At least it was "fun" overall. Would not rank it very high in cinematic art.
The Untouchables (1987)
What the...? End to End awesomeness in this movie. KC was overshadowed by Sean Connery in this one (ya think) and MR. DiNero, but you cannot take away from The Untouchables.
No Way Out (1987)
Weak on intrigue, despite it's best intentions. The "twist" at the end tries to make up for it, but only mildly succeeds.
Bull Durham (1988)
Sorry purists, but this is the entry in the "Kevin Costner Baseball Movie" list where I simply cannot get into the film. Tim and Susan were...um... ok I guess. But overall I give it a "meh"
Field of Dreams (1989)
Shut up fellas, y'all know you cry during this one. SO GOOD. Is it a father / son movie? Is it a baseball movie? Sci-fi? Ghost Story? Redemption? YES. And most importantly it's all of those things done SO WELL. If you build it, he will come. Ease his pain. Go the distance. "People will come, Ray... Oh yes, people will come." "Hey... Dad? Wanna have a catch?"
Revenge (1990)
Um. No. Really. No.
Dances With Wolves (1990)
When I saw this in the theatres, I was blown away by it. Subsequent viewings and the "test of time" have, as a friend pointed out, almost made it a parody of itself. However, if you can watch the super-long-extended-directors-cut-we-picked-up-all-the-edited-scenes-and-spliced-them-back-in 4 1/2 hour long version, it completes that movie and tells that story so well, it's comparable to the "Extended Editions" of Lord of the Rings in the way it fills out the movie.
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)
I think I saw this in the theatre on Sheridan Road on the south side of Kenosha when it came out, and it was LOUD... but... that was good! The soundtrack, Connery-cameo, fun-ness, Christian Slater, "TO THE TREES!!!", "Why a spoon cousin..." "Cuz it's dull you twit it will hurt more" fun-ness cannot be ignored.
JFK (1991)
Well... It was an Oliver Stone(d) movie. I'm not sure how I feel about it, except that if it was on, I probably would turn the channel and not think twice. Not a "bad" movie, but not captivating.
The Bodyguard (1992)
Um... Mmhm. It inspired haircuts for men across the world. I may have liked it better when it came out then now.
A Perfect World (1993)
THIS movie I liked. As the "antagonist" KC did a good job of making him sympathetic, while Eastwood's sheriff kept trying to track him down. I think I like this movie more as time goes on.
Wyatt Earp (1994)
This movie probably never got a fair shake. You can tell KC is romanticized by the story of Wyatt Earp and the Old West in general, but it came out opposite of one of the most ass-kicking cowboy movies EVAH starring everybody that should be in a cowboy movie. Like you need hints. Can you say Sam Elliot? Val Kilmer? Charlton Freekin' Heston? Powers Boothe? Bill Paxton? Michael Beihn as Johnny Ringo and of course Kurt Russell as THE Wyatt Earp? Yeah, I'm talkin' TOMBSTONE!!! Ooops, I got distracted by a far superior movie. Costner's Wyatt Earp. It was... pretty?
The War (1994)
I hold this film up as one of KC's finest. Starring as the father of Frodo Baggins... er.. Elijah Wood (fresh off his role in "Forever Young" if I'm not mistaken), KC is actually quite brilliant with the supporting character / limited screen time. If you haven't seen it. Check it out. It's worth it.
Waterworld (1995)
Ooof... When the most memorable part of a movie is the "Universal Studios" logo at the beginning (which shows the earth) being flooded by water to setup the movie... you know it's not good. The only other thing I really remember, and wish I didn't, is that he pissed in a cup on his raft, ran the liquid through some sort of purifier, and then drank it as "clean water". Al Gore would be proud of this cautionary tale of global warming. Can't wait to drink my pee.
Tin Cup (1996)
I like golfing. Quite a bit. This movie almost made me not like it. The only thing it has done for me is give me the sarcastic phrase "tin cupping it" when trying to chip a ball over a water hazard seven or eight times to no avail. What's the definition of insanity again? Oh yeah, watching Tin Cup.
The Postman (1997)
Kevin, if you're going to make 1 post-apocalyptic "wanderer" movie, and your choices are Waterworld and The Postman. DON'T MAKE BOTH. Just this one. I like this movie, Shakespeare. I like it a lot. And... well... Tom Petty. There I said it.
Message in a Bottle (1999)
Nicholas Sparks writes chick-flicks. OK, he writes chick-novels, but many / most / probably all of them are turned into movies that basically, I could care less about. Example: A Walk to Remember - forgettable (see what I did there?) There are a few exceptions. The Notebook. Amazingly good. Message in a Bottle - actually, a fine, fine movie. Is it a chick flick? Oh yes, but it's a good'n.
For Love of the Game (1999)
11 Years after Field of Dreams, KC goes back to baseball. And HOW! To get "revved up" for baseball season, sometimes you just want to go and watch all the baseball movies that have inspired you somehow... The Natural. Field of Dreams. For Love of the Game. A League of Their Own. The Rookie. (I'm sure Ditter would add Little Big League or others...). You don't really like Billy Chapel through most of the movie, but by the end, you REALLY like Billy Chapel. Love this flick. Love the way the story is told.
Thirteen Days (2000)
Hanging on the edge of my seat, just WONDERING if the nukes would launch in this re-telling of Thirteen Days in October. They didn't. The Titanic still sunk at the end. Passable movie.
3000 Miles to Graceland (2001)
Actually, this movie, as bad as it is (though a Kostner / Russel team-up in a film is awesome) is actually quite fun. I'd watch it one more time. Despite the naysayers that compare it to say, Reindeer Games, I think this film pokes enough fun at itself to be enjoyable. I mean, c'mon? Elvis Impersonating Criminals? HECK YEAH!
Dragonfly (2002)
This movie is under-rated. It's a "haunting" flick, but not a "scary movie". It's a bit of love-transcends-life. Another, like The War, that deserves a viewing. I'd watch it again, and enjoy it just as much.
Open Range (2003)
As he aged, Robert Duvall became more of a bad-ass. This is evidenced in Open Range as well as Secondhand Lions. Costner, again showing his deep rooted enjoyment of sweeping landscapes, horseback riding and ten-gallon hats, gave us an enjoyable western without devolving into a "cowboy and indian" stereotype. Good film. Slow, but deliberate.
The Guardian (2006)
No. Bad. NO. Without too much of a spoiler, the wrong lead character dies in this one. For starters.
Mr. Brooks (2007)
Oh boy, KC is a bad guy. So evil. Look out. YAAAAWN.
Swing Vote (2008)
Cute concept. Tepid execution. Skip it unless you're bored.
Well, there ya have it. I skipped The Upside of Anger cuz I didn't see it, and there's some older stuff I haven't seen, but oh well, it's my blog, I can do what I want.
CHEERS!
BradK
The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.
Terrance Mann, "Field of Dreams"
BAD CMT!!! BAD!!!
Anyways, it inspired me, twas my Muse perhaps, to give a run down on KC's movies.
Let's start waaay back at the beginning with the help of IMDB to make sure I catch everything... Actually, we'll be starting with the earliest Kostner film I have seen and work from there. Cuz if I haven't seen it, I don't care.
Silverado (1985)
Ah cowboys. Ah. Cowboys. At least it was "fun" overall. Would not rank it very high in cinematic art.
The Untouchables (1987)
What the...? End to End awesomeness in this movie. KC was overshadowed by Sean Connery in this one (ya think) and MR. DiNero, but you cannot take away from The Untouchables.
No Way Out (1987)
Weak on intrigue, despite it's best intentions. The "twist" at the end tries to make up for it, but only mildly succeeds.
Bull Durham (1988)
Sorry purists, but this is the entry in the "Kevin Costner Baseball Movie" list where I simply cannot get into the film. Tim and Susan were...um... ok I guess. But overall I give it a "meh"
Field of Dreams (1989)
Shut up fellas, y'all know you cry during this one. SO GOOD. Is it a father / son movie? Is it a baseball movie? Sci-fi? Ghost Story? Redemption? YES. And most importantly it's all of those things done SO WELL. If you build it, he will come. Ease his pain. Go the distance. "People will come, Ray... Oh yes, people will come." "Hey... Dad? Wanna have a catch?"
Revenge (1990)
Um. No. Really. No.
Dances With Wolves (1990)
When I saw this in the theatres, I was blown away by it. Subsequent viewings and the "test of time" have, as a friend pointed out, almost made it a parody of itself. However, if you can watch the super-long-extended-directors-cut-we-picked-up-all-the-edited-scenes-and-spliced-them-back-in 4 1/2 hour long version, it completes that movie and tells that story so well, it's comparable to the "Extended Editions" of Lord of the Rings in the way it fills out the movie.
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)
I think I saw this in the theatre on Sheridan Road on the south side of Kenosha when it came out, and it was LOUD... but... that was good! The soundtrack, Connery-cameo, fun-ness, Christian Slater, "TO THE TREES!!!", "Why a spoon cousin..." "Cuz it's dull you twit it will hurt more" fun-ness cannot be ignored.
JFK (1991)
Well... It was an Oliver Stone(d) movie. I'm not sure how I feel about it, except that if it was on, I probably would turn the channel and not think twice. Not a "bad" movie, but not captivating.
The Bodyguard (1992)
Um... Mmhm. It inspired haircuts for men across the world. I may have liked it better when it came out then now.
A Perfect World (1993)
THIS movie I liked. As the "antagonist" KC did a good job of making him sympathetic, while Eastwood's sheriff kept trying to track him down. I think I like this movie more as time goes on.
Wyatt Earp (1994)
This movie probably never got a fair shake. You can tell KC is romanticized by the story of Wyatt Earp and the Old West in general, but it came out opposite of one of the most ass-kicking cowboy movies EVAH starring everybody that should be in a cowboy movie. Like you need hints. Can you say Sam Elliot? Val Kilmer? Charlton Freekin' Heston? Powers Boothe? Bill Paxton? Michael Beihn as Johnny Ringo and of course Kurt Russell as THE Wyatt Earp? Yeah, I'm talkin' TOMBSTONE!!! Ooops, I got distracted by a far superior movie. Costner's Wyatt Earp. It was... pretty?
The War (1994)
I hold this film up as one of KC's finest. Starring as the father of Frodo Baggins... er.. Elijah Wood (fresh off his role in "Forever Young" if I'm not mistaken), KC is actually quite brilliant with the supporting character / limited screen time. If you haven't seen it. Check it out. It's worth it.
Waterworld (1995)
Ooof... When the most memorable part of a movie is the "Universal Studios" logo at the beginning (which shows the earth) being flooded by water to setup the movie... you know it's not good. The only other thing I really remember, and wish I didn't, is that he pissed in a cup on his raft, ran the liquid through some sort of purifier, and then drank it as "clean water". Al Gore would be proud of this cautionary tale of global warming. Can't wait to drink my pee.
Tin Cup (1996)
I like golfing. Quite a bit. This movie almost made me not like it. The only thing it has done for me is give me the sarcastic phrase "tin cupping it" when trying to chip a ball over a water hazard seven or eight times to no avail. What's the definition of insanity again? Oh yeah, watching Tin Cup.
The Postman (1997)
Kevin, if you're going to make 1 post-apocalyptic "wanderer" movie, and your choices are Waterworld and The Postman. DON'T MAKE BOTH. Just this one. I like this movie, Shakespeare. I like it a lot. And... well... Tom Petty. There I said it.
Message in a Bottle (1999)
Nicholas Sparks writes chick-flicks. OK, he writes chick-novels, but many / most / probably all of them are turned into movies that basically, I could care less about. Example: A Walk to Remember - forgettable (see what I did there?) There are a few exceptions. The Notebook. Amazingly good. Message in a Bottle - actually, a fine, fine movie. Is it a chick flick? Oh yes, but it's a good'n.
For Love of the Game (1999)
11 Years after Field of Dreams, KC goes back to baseball. And HOW! To get "revved up" for baseball season, sometimes you just want to go and watch all the baseball movies that have inspired you somehow... The Natural. Field of Dreams. For Love of the Game. A League of Their Own. The Rookie. (I'm sure Ditter would add Little Big League or others...). You don't really like Billy Chapel through most of the movie, but by the end, you REALLY like Billy Chapel. Love this flick. Love the way the story is told.
Thirteen Days (2000)
Hanging on the edge of my seat, just WONDERING if the nukes would launch in this re-telling of Thirteen Days in October. They didn't. The Titanic still sunk at the end. Passable movie.
3000 Miles to Graceland (2001)
Actually, this movie, as bad as it is (though a Kostner / Russel team-up in a film is awesome) is actually quite fun. I'd watch it one more time. Despite the naysayers that compare it to say, Reindeer Games, I think this film pokes enough fun at itself to be enjoyable. I mean, c'mon? Elvis Impersonating Criminals? HECK YEAH!
Dragonfly (2002)
This movie is under-rated. It's a "haunting" flick, but not a "scary movie". It's a bit of love-transcends-life. Another, like The War, that deserves a viewing. I'd watch it again, and enjoy it just as much.
Open Range (2003)
As he aged, Robert Duvall became more of a bad-ass. This is evidenced in Open Range as well as Secondhand Lions. Costner, again showing his deep rooted enjoyment of sweeping landscapes, horseback riding and ten-gallon hats, gave us an enjoyable western without devolving into a "cowboy and indian" stereotype. Good film. Slow, but deliberate.
The Guardian (2006)
No. Bad. NO. Without too much of a spoiler, the wrong lead character dies in this one. For starters.
Mr. Brooks (2007)
Oh boy, KC is a bad guy. So evil. Look out. YAAAAWN.
Swing Vote (2008)
Cute concept. Tepid execution. Skip it unless you're bored.
Well, there ya have it. I skipped The Upside of Anger cuz I didn't see it, and there's some older stuff I haven't seen, but oh well, it's my blog, I can do what I want.
CHEERS!
BradK
The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.
Terrance Mann, "Field of Dreams"
15 February 2010
Gay Corporations Press Lawmakers For Equal Rights
Dateline - Everytown, USA
Since the Supreme Court ruling affirming "personhood" to corporations in their recent decision protecting political donations as a form of free speech as defined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, lawmakers and media outlets have seen a deluge of attention by Corporation-People demanding equality in all the rights bestowed upon the human citizenry.
Most recently, lawmakers in at least 32 states have received numerous requests demanding that Gay Corporations be allowed to Merge and have the same rights thereof as Straight Corporations.
Speaking under a shroud of anonymity, one Gay Corporation released this statement:
"Inasmuch as straight corporations are allowed to merge publicly and with the blessing of the SEC and federal recognition, it behooves us as Corporate People to press for equality across Corporation-kind. No longer should we feel the need to hide in the shadows or lie about our sexual orientation because as Gay Corporations, we are STILL 'people' under the protection of all the rights bestowed on us by the Constitution. If we make money, do you not tax us? If we hemorrhage cash, do we not downsize? We are the brothers and sisters of the straight corporation, not some freak or pervert to be shunned by the very government that defined our personhood, that we pay our taxes to protect us! It was difficult enough for many of us in the Gay Corporation community to come out to our parent companies, and we strongly feel and urge lawmakers to consider our rights just as inalienable as the Straight Corporation's."
Despite considerable objections to legalizing Gay Corporate Mergers by the likes of Kansas based "Fred Phelps, Inc" who went on record saying "Those f---- companies will burn in bankruptcy court for their heathen ways", the press for equal rights in the Gay Corporate community has drawn a considerable list of powerful supporters across the nation and abroad. France based airline manufacturer, Airbus SAS (the world'd largest suspected Gay Corporation - they have not come out, but suspicions abound in the Corporate Blogosphere) has supported the Gay Corporate position in the United States by saying "There have been many Straight Corporate Mergers that have resulted in a worse overall economic disasters. When Houston Gas and Northern Natural Gas Merged to become Enron, well, I think we all know the end result of that mess. We still have former Enron employees living in France who could not afford to fly home after the crash of that organization. Wait, we don't officially use the word 'crash' at our company. It's against policy."
Attorney Corporation Dewey Takem and Howe LLC, representing the ACCLU (American Corporate Civil Liberty Union) has filed several class action lawsuits on behalf of a large number of Gay Corporations against the 22 U.S. States who have amended their constitutions to state that a "Merger is Defined as a Union or Buyout of two opposite gendered organizations, and that no relationship outside this definition shall be granted substantially similar rights." ACCLU spokesman, former ACORN Tax Adviser I. Getmore Handowts, has been making a cross-country trek along with the traveling grassroots political movement known as the "COFFEE Party (Corporate Obligations For Fast Equality Everywhere)" and has made several stump speeches at the cafeterias of Gay or "Probably Gay" corporations through Butts County, Georgia, where resistance to the Gay Corporate movement has been harsh. Most residents in that county were a bit put off, however, by the hecklers at these speeches who kept shouting out "You have a purty PR Department" (obviously mocking Oscar winning movie "Bailout Deliverance" from the 70's).
"I don't care if a company is gay" said one unnamed resident, "but can't they be gay on a smaller stock market instead of where everyone can see them like when they're traded on the Dow Jones or Nasdaq? I mean, the S&P 500 would be fine, nobody looks there anyways..."
The issue has caught the attention of Foreign Dignitaries as well, including the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran who went on record as saying that Iran "doesn't have that problem [Gay Corporations]" within it's borders.
Barbados based Mount Gay Rum, LLC responded to all media inquiries with "No Comment" and then was reported to have gone straight back to flirting with Bahamas based Bacardi in hopes of a takeover.
It is unclear whether any major political party will take a hard stand in the 2010 Congressional Elections or the 2012 Presidential Elections on this issue, despite having poll numbers that are nearly identical to party relationship. GOP Spokesman and potential 2012 Presidential Candidate Hardy Woodcock stated that "if they come to the table with enough contribution money, I'll listen to them, I don't care if they get off on Preferred Shares or Split Stock!" Meanwhile, the DNC issued a collective statement saying "We HOPE we can CHANGE the public's acceptance of Gay Corporations, we thought we had succeeded here in the past, but perhaps we may need to explain it better to the American people. HOPE AND CHANGE!" When asked a follow up question, the DNC let out a guttural scream reminiscent of Howard Dean's speeches and, according to his wife and nine out of ten mistresses, sexual climax.
In other Business-Person news, federal lawmakers are working out a bill that will ban the deletion of intellectual property of a corporation that is still in development, but beyond two-thirds completion toward applying for a patent. Proponents of the so called "Late-Term-Cancellation" bill call a cancellation at such a late stage of a property's development "cruel and in-corporate-mane" while opponents are holding firm to the mandate that a clause be included that such actions would be allowed in the case where a CEO would need to "protect the health of the general ledger."
Finally, the IRS has reported that it is auditing Time Warner for allegedly listing AOL as a "dependent" on it's income taxes since their merger several years ago. Time Warner attorney Max P. A. Yout defended Time Warner's actions, stating that although his client does not dispute the charges, since the merger "it's like having a stay at home spouse or a small child or a live-in college kid to Time Warner. They are there, they are legally bound to my client, but they sure aint bringing in any income. As corporate "people" that sounds to me like a dependent under the tax code."
Since the Supreme Court ruling affirming "personhood" to corporations in their recent decision protecting political donations as a form of free speech as defined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, lawmakers and media outlets have seen a deluge of attention by Corporation-People demanding equality in all the rights bestowed upon the human citizenry.
Most recently, lawmakers in at least 32 states have received numerous requests demanding that Gay Corporations be allowed to Merge and have the same rights thereof as Straight Corporations.
Speaking under a shroud of anonymity, one Gay Corporation released this statement:
"Inasmuch as straight corporations are allowed to merge publicly and with the blessing of the SEC and federal recognition, it behooves us as Corporate People to press for equality across Corporation-kind. No longer should we feel the need to hide in the shadows or lie about our sexual orientation because as Gay Corporations, we are STILL 'people' under the protection of all the rights bestowed on us by the Constitution. If we make money, do you not tax us? If we hemorrhage cash, do we not downsize? We are the brothers and sisters of the straight corporation, not some freak or pervert to be shunned by the very government that defined our personhood, that we pay our taxes to protect us! It was difficult enough for many of us in the Gay Corporation community to come out to our parent companies, and we strongly feel and urge lawmakers to consider our rights just as inalienable as the Straight Corporation's."
Despite considerable objections to legalizing Gay Corporate Mergers by the likes of Kansas based "Fred Phelps, Inc" who went on record saying "Those f---- companies will burn in bankruptcy court for their heathen ways", the press for equal rights in the Gay Corporate community has drawn a considerable list of powerful supporters across the nation and abroad. France based airline manufacturer, Airbus SAS (the world'd largest suspected Gay Corporation - they have not come out, but suspicions abound in the Corporate Blogosphere) has supported the Gay Corporate position in the United States by saying "There have been many Straight Corporate Mergers that have resulted in a worse overall economic disasters. When Houston Gas and Northern Natural Gas Merged to become Enron, well, I think we all know the end result of that mess. We still have former Enron employees living in France who could not afford to fly home after the crash of that organization. Wait, we don't officially use the word 'crash' at our company. It's against policy."
Attorney Corporation Dewey Takem and Howe LLC, representing the ACCLU (American Corporate Civil Liberty Union) has filed several class action lawsuits on behalf of a large number of Gay Corporations against the 22 U.S. States who have amended their constitutions to state that a "Merger is Defined as a Union or Buyout of two opposite gendered organizations, and that no relationship outside this definition shall be granted substantially similar rights." ACCLU spokesman, former ACORN Tax Adviser I. Getmore Handowts, has been making a cross-country trek along with the traveling grassroots political movement known as the "COFFEE Party (Corporate Obligations For Fast Equality Everywhere)" and has made several stump speeches at the cafeterias of Gay or "Probably Gay" corporations through Butts County, Georgia, where resistance to the Gay Corporate movement has been harsh. Most residents in that county were a bit put off, however, by the hecklers at these speeches who kept shouting out "You have a purty PR Department" (obviously mocking Oscar winning movie "Bailout Deliverance" from the 70's).
"I don't care if a company is gay" said one unnamed resident, "but can't they be gay on a smaller stock market instead of where everyone can see them like when they're traded on the Dow Jones or Nasdaq? I mean, the S&P 500 would be fine, nobody looks there anyways..."
The issue has caught the attention of Foreign Dignitaries as well, including the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran who went on record as saying that Iran "doesn't have that problem [Gay Corporations]" within it's borders.
Barbados based Mount Gay Rum, LLC responded to all media inquiries with "No Comment" and then was reported to have gone straight back to flirting with Bahamas based Bacardi in hopes of a takeover.
It is unclear whether any major political party will take a hard stand in the 2010 Congressional Elections or the 2012 Presidential Elections on this issue, despite having poll numbers that are nearly identical to party relationship. GOP Spokesman and potential 2012 Presidential Candidate Hardy Woodcock stated that "if they come to the table with enough contribution money, I'll listen to them, I don't care if they get off on Preferred Shares or Split Stock!" Meanwhile, the DNC issued a collective statement saying "We HOPE we can CHANGE the public's acceptance of Gay Corporations, we thought we had succeeded here in the past, but perhaps we may need to explain it better to the American people. HOPE AND CHANGE!" When asked a follow up question, the DNC let out a guttural scream reminiscent of Howard Dean's speeches and, according to his wife and nine out of ten mistresses, sexual climax.
In other Business-Person news, federal lawmakers are working out a bill that will ban the deletion of intellectual property of a corporation that is still in development, but beyond two-thirds completion toward applying for a patent. Proponents of the so called "Late-Term-Cancellation" bill call a cancellation at such a late stage of a property's development "cruel and in-corporate-mane" while opponents are holding firm to the mandate that a clause be included that such actions would be allowed in the case where a CEO would need to "protect the health of the general ledger."
Finally, the IRS has reported that it is auditing Time Warner for allegedly listing AOL as a "dependent" on it's income taxes since their merger several years ago. Time Warner attorney Max P. A. Yout defended Time Warner's actions, stating that although his client does not dispute the charges, since the merger "it's like having a stay at home spouse or a small child or a live-in college kid to Time Warner. They are there, they are legally bound to my client, but they sure aint bringing in any income. As corporate "people" that sounds to me like a dependent under the tax code."
07 February 2010
Blatant Cross-Promotion
Hey everybody!
Miss me? Yeah, me too.
So, here's a little bit of blatant cross-promotion because it's my blog and I can do what I want to, so there.
I have recently become involved with a Independent Movie Production of a film called "Love In IV Acts". Now, don't, like me, think that "IV" means "Intravenous" as though the love gets mainlined into a person like a saline drip. It's not like that at all. Apparently, those kooky Romans use LETTERS for NUMBERS. So, the great and might Roman Empire, as advanced as they were in technology and art and blahblahblah, REALLY couldn't come up with a system similar to "1...2...3....3.....3...." (that's for Ditter's benefit, by the way)...
No, no, how about I... II... III... III... III... I..V!!!! Nice work Nero.. way to be innovative.
That, my friends, is called a random tangent. I go on them often, and sometimes never return. I think I'm going to return this time, because "Love in IV (4, for those not keeping up) Acts" is a super-cool project using super awesome local people (with one dude from L.A.) to create a super-awesome film.
SO... On Facebook, cuz I know all-y'all have accounts, join the group "Love in IV Acts" and consider donating 2 beers worth of money (or a LOT more if you want) to support this project. As the sound guy, I'd really appreciate your donations because it's the difference between me getting some high quality SHURE LAV's and a Boom Mic and using soup cans and a string plugged into a donkey we re-creates the sound.
I hate the donkey method. And they really hate the part where I plug in the string.
It's also important to join the group for MORAL SUPPORT because we believe in this project and we believe you can believe, I believe.
More importantly, we need the money to buy the digital video editing equipment to make Dan look good. We don't know if that software is written yet, or is we need to call Pixar.. thought if we call Pixar, I think we'll end up with Dan digitally edited to look like Mr. Potato Head from Toy Story. Although an improvement.. it might make the story take a wicked turn during the "deep fryer" scene... I dunno... maybe.
So...
In conclusitorium, DO IT. Join the group, donate what you can, if you can, provide moral support (God knows we need some morals here), and wait eagerly on the edge of your seat for the premiere of "Love in IV Acts". (And, that's the *front* edge, as in anticipation, not the "back edge" like you did trying to live through "Michael Clayton")
Ciao...
Miss me? Yeah, me too.
So, here's a little bit of blatant cross-promotion because it's my blog and I can do what I want to, so there.
I have recently become involved with a Independent Movie Production of a film called "Love In IV Acts". Now, don't, like me, think that "IV" means "Intravenous" as though the love gets mainlined into a person like a saline drip. It's not like that at all. Apparently, those kooky Romans use LETTERS for NUMBERS. So, the great and might Roman Empire, as advanced as they were in technology and art and blahblahblah, REALLY couldn't come up with a system similar to "1...2...3....3.....3...." (that's for Ditter's benefit, by the way)...
No, no, how about I... II... III... III... III... I..V!!!! Nice work Nero.. way to be innovative.
That, my friends, is called a random tangent. I go on them often, and sometimes never return. I think I'm going to return this time, because "Love in IV (4, for those not keeping up) Acts" is a super-cool project using super awesome local people (with one dude from L.A.) to create a super-awesome film.
SO... On Facebook, cuz I know all-y'all have accounts, join the group "Love in IV Acts" and consider donating 2 beers worth of money (or a LOT more if you want) to support this project. As the sound guy, I'd really appreciate your donations because it's the difference between me getting some high quality SHURE LAV's and a Boom Mic and using soup cans and a string plugged into a donkey we re-creates the sound.
I hate the donkey method. And they really hate the part where I plug in the string.
It's also important to join the group for MORAL SUPPORT because we believe in this project and we believe you can believe, I believe.
More importantly, we need the money to buy the digital video editing equipment to make Dan look good. We don't know if that software is written yet, or is we need to call Pixar.. thought if we call Pixar, I think we'll end up with Dan digitally edited to look like Mr. Potato Head from Toy Story. Although an improvement.. it might make the story take a wicked turn during the "deep fryer" scene... I dunno... maybe.
So...
In conclusitorium, DO IT. Join the group, donate what you can, if you can, provide moral support (God knows we need some morals here), and wait eagerly on the edge of your seat for the premiere of "Love in IV Acts". (And, that's the *front* edge, as in anticipation, not the "back edge" like you did trying to live through "Michael Clayton")
Ciao...
01 February 2010
Let's Discuss....
Hey all,
I recently read an article on "full body scanners" being implemented in the UK at the airports. The article can be reviewed here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gFU8wV43a_iNwGDVr89EWLXrrH_A
Towards the end of the article, there is a quote from a representative of a campaign group called "Big Brother Watch" that goes a little something like this...
"What kind of a free society does the Government think it is 'protecting', when it invades our privacy like this? When we are forced to expose ourselves at the airport in order to go on holiday, the terrorists have won."
That made me think about how to define when "terrorists have won"...
Now, me personally, I think when terrorists blow up our airplanes, they have won. At the same time, I can appreciate where the sentiment expressed above comes from. It's been said that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (by Benjamin Franklin)
This quote has been the calling card for people who are anti-PATRIOT Act, anti-body scanners, etc. The essence of what Ben Franklin was saying is certainly valid. However, I wonder if he intentionally used the following phrases/words:
"give up" - suggesting voluntary
"Essential" - can't do without (without undermining the meaning or spirit of the term)
"little" - not much
"Temporary" - not permanent
So there's that. Then there's the issue of "terrorists have won"
It's true that terrorism's nature is to affect the standard of living of a person or group of people to make them live in fear. I put to you this question: would you fly on an airplane in a heightened state or lessened state of fear KNOWING that everyone's been screened using the most advanced technology possible to ensure that there's no (or negligible) risk that someone will be successful in blowing up the airplane?
That question, I think, is personal. I might travel with a renewed sense of safety if I know everyone was screened to ensure there are no explosive devices. My quality of life is improved because I am not afraid, and my "lifestyle" has not been affected because I can still freely move about via air travel. Others might feel differently.
I think there are two ways to ensure that the plane I am on is not blown up:
1) Ensure there aren't any people out there that want to do it
2) Ensure the ones that do, don't get on the plane
I think attaining option 2 is a little easier than option 1...
Thoughts?
BradK
I recently read an article on "full body scanners" being implemented in the UK at the airports. The article can be reviewed here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gFU8wV43a_iNwGDVr89EWLXrrH_A
Towards the end of the article, there is a quote from a representative of a campaign group called "Big Brother Watch" that goes a little something like this...
"What kind of a free society does the Government think it is 'protecting', when it invades our privacy like this? When we are forced to expose ourselves at the airport in order to go on holiday, the terrorists have won."
That made me think about how to define when "terrorists have won"...
Now, me personally, I think when terrorists blow up our airplanes, they have won. At the same time, I can appreciate where the sentiment expressed above comes from. It's been said that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (by Benjamin Franklin)
This quote has been the calling card for people who are anti-PATRIOT Act, anti-body scanners, etc. The essence of what Ben Franklin was saying is certainly valid. However, I wonder if he intentionally used the following phrases/words:
"give up" - suggesting voluntary
"Essential" - can't do without (without undermining the meaning or spirit of the term)
"little" - not much
"Temporary" - not permanent
So there's that. Then there's the issue of "terrorists have won"
It's true that terrorism's nature is to affect the standard of living of a person or group of people to make them live in fear. I put to you this question: would you fly on an airplane in a heightened state or lessened state of fear KNOWING that everyone's been screened using the most advanced technology possible to ensure that there's no (or negligible) risk that someone will be successful in blowing up the airplane?
That question, I think, is personal. I might travel with a renewed sense of safety if I know everyone was screened to ensure there are no explosive devices. My quality of life is improved because I am not afraid, and my "lifestyle" has not been affected because I can still freely move about via air travel. Others might feel differently.
I think there are two ways to ensure that the plane I am on is not blown up:
1) Ensure there aren't any people out there that want to do it
2) Ensure the ones that do, don't get on the plane
I think attaining option 2 is a little easier than option 1...
Thoughts?
BradK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
