Movie Review: "Skyfall"

   I am an ardent fan of the cinematic arts. Although I have certain genre preferences, I don’t let that stifle my curiosity and close myself to different flavors of entertainment. That said...I am a huge fan of science fiction, super hero and action movies! Please visit my other blog The Boxed Office for reviews, exclusively, on these types of movies.

The Cast: 

Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, and Naomie Harris

   Daniel Craig borders on the best Bond for me. I just like his gritty, no-nonsense approach to the role and it’s a nice departure from the suave, cool as ice-water, modus operandi of the past actors that have been Bond. Craig makes Bond human by making him fallible. The best part is that he doesn’t just do this...he delivers everything else that audiences have come to associate with Bond. 

   Javier Bardem is an excellent actor and it seems as though he has fulfilled something destined to be...when he steps into the shoes of Silva, the latest Bond villain. Very few people were born to be a Bond villain...so bless Bardem for answering his calling. 

   Naomie Harris is the latest installment of one half of the Bond girls in the film...and although not portrayed as glamorous as Bond women have been in the past, the utility of her role is perfect for the plot, and sets up a nice surprise for longtime fans.

The Plot:

   Really? It’s James Bond, who needs a plot? Well...as much as that question might ring true for some, the basic Bond formula was present. Mad villain seeks to cause chaos and destruction, with a side of revenge to round the dish out. It’s pretty straight forward, but let me get into all the explosive details.

   A drive with a list of all the MI6 agents has been stolen and Bond must recover it before it gets into the wrong hands. In the process of recovering the stolen drive, Eve (Harris) has Bond and his adversary in her crosshairs as they fight on the roof of a moving train, and is ordered, by M, to take a shot that has an equal chance of striking Bond. It does, and Bond falls from the train and presumed killed.

   Now in enemy hands, MI6 agents across the world are being executed, and the Prime Minister of England calls for M’s resignation. With agents being killed and computer systems being compromised, M’s office within MI6 headquarters is bombed...the icing on the cake to show that nobody is safe. Enter the return of Bond.

   Bond is put back to active duty and tracks down the man behind all the chaos, Raoul Silva, and ex-MI6 agent with an axe to grind against M. Bond recovers the drive, captures Silva and learns the past history behind the attacks. A prisoner within the new headquarters of MI6, Silva is exactly where he planned to be all along...within striking distance of M. When Q tries to access Silva’s top secret files, the tables are turned...and things get very interesting as Bond must protect M from a rogue agent that is always three steps ahead, with all the bases covered.

The Verdict: 

   Any fan of James Bond will be a fan of this film as well. It is being advertised as the best Bond film ever, but that is a stretch considering the body of work the Bond series covers (25 films). There are hints of a new direction, while paying homage to the classic foundations

   The most visible aspect of Bond in this film is his vulnerability. He is shot, can’t make the grade for active duty, and has trouble compensating for his shortcomings. This is something not really shown in Bond films as he has not been this vulnerable since the beginning of Die Another Day.

   Missing also are the plethora of gadgets, opting instead to keep it very simple and focused on Bond himself. Although Q’s bag of tricks is missing (replaced by his updated hacking ability), the original Aston Martin DB5 makes an appearance and hefty contribution.

   The fact that Bond isn’t the can-do-anything slickster works for this film. It puts it in a place not normally traveled by the (Bond) material. That said, it might have gone too much in this direction since being a Bond film carries with it a certain amount of expectations. Even so, this film was able explode, shoot and poison three and a half (3 1/2) cinnamon sticks, out of five, in this extremely tasty cup of tea. Shaken, not stirred...of course.

Past Forward

   The past should never be forgotten, especially for avoiding a repeat of valuable lessons learned the hard way. There is an old saying that those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it. “Doomed” giving a negative connotation to the saying, with a positive spin of not repeating the negativity. Some might argue, depending on their particular experience, that the past is best forgotten. I suppose there is merit in both philosophies...but how does one go forward if their constant fixation is on...or in, the past?

   If my recent observations are any indication of an answer to this question, then someone living within this situation is having a very hard time indeed. Life is change. Wait...let me amend that, life is constant change. With every moment that passes there is some kind of change taking place. People are a part of that change and those most cognizant of the changes effecting them tend to adapt a bit better than those that are unprepared or unconcerned. Then there are those willfully resistant to the inevitable changes of life...and when a fixation is developed on a point in the past, the contradiction to the present is troublingly evident.

   See...the past is fixed. A past event cannot be changed. The people we knew in the past, have already changed (such is the nature of life) so if a choice is made to fixate on a past event, or person of the past...then focus is lost and distorted. How many times has it been said and heard of a desire to have a person “back?” To have them return to a point they were at in the past. Just think about that for a moment. It really doesn’t make any sense. None of us can become exactly who we were in our past since every moment between then and now has only served to do exactly one thing through our experiences...change us.

   What becomes of all the energy put into a past fixation? Well...it’s wasted, on a fixed unchanging point. My personal philosophy is such energy would be better used exploring that same person, in the present (provided that’s something that is desired). It’s more of a “I remember who you were, but who are you now?” After all, any interactions with that person will be an interaction in the present with whomever they have become...not who they used to be. Some reading this might think this is all very elementary, and it is...for some of us. Sadly there are those that are having a hard time grasping this fundamental reality.

   Nostalgia...we all get a taste of it at some point, for something. Every now and then a backward look is given and invites warm and welcome feelings. Sometimes that look invites a renewed sadness. Whatever the case, for our own mental and emotional health, it must remain a “look” and not become a thousand-yard stare. When that happens, like staring in real time, things are still going on around us that we might miss because we aren’t paying attention. Sometimes those things are things we really didn’t want to miss. That’s why a glance in every direction serves very well to paint a complete picture of what is going on around us.

   Let me put it another way. Before crossing the street, we were taught to look both ways. It is good advice, especially if traffic flows in both directions. Now imagine keeping your gaze fixated directly ahead of you (or worse, just walking backwards) while you step off the curb and continue into a busy intersection. Needless to say, bad things will happen. It’s the same when someone stays fixated on a point in the past, as they step off the curb and continue into the busy intersection of the present. Bad things happen.

   Being blindsided by a speeding truck is, more often than naught, fatal. Being blindsided by the speeding conditions of the present, while not normally fatal, can be very unpleasant. Yes, if my observations are any indication, I would have to say that you could fast forward, and look toward the future...while keeping an eye on the present. You can’t past forward...that’s like walking backwards off a cliff you never saw coming. It’s not the fall that kills you...it’s the sudden stop.

A House Divided

   The nation is divided, but we need not be at odds with each other...at least not to the disturbing extreme some seem to be taking the issues. Clearly there are differing opinions on a variety of issues facing our great nation. It gets murky when people start talking of officially dividing the nation...a step back in time, and start enacting violence upon their fellow citizens, even family! We have seen brother-against-brother before and it was as tragic then as it is now.

   Everybody is never going to agree on every point of any candidate that runs for the highest office in the land. There will always be those that think differently. It’s this diversity in thinking that makes this country as great as it is. When I was growing up, it was taught that America was the melting pot of the world. Now it seems that pot has been simmering too long, and some of the good stuff has started to burn. This last election cycle has revealed some disturbing ingredients.

   There is currently a call by a few, and by “few” I mean in comparison to the total population of the country, to secede from the union. There are some that dismiss this, since it’s only a “few”...but that number ranges in the hundreds of thousands collectively, and that has never been a small number from my point of view. Despite that, the inception of this is a divided country, so although the majority of those at odds with the half of the country that were victorious are not seceding, we are now living in a house...divided.

   Politics is a passionate subject. I’d say this is quite obvious now as it seems to trump passion associated with finding a mate. I know emotions are still running high, but let me just say that the world is not coming to an end just because the President won a second term. I mean, if the world comes to an end...it was always going to happen anyway right? That’s what the Mayans said...and don’t get me started on the Book of Revelations!

   I heard the story of Holly Solomon, the woman that made headlines by running her husband over because of her disdain for President Obama...whom her husband didn’t even vote for. The worse tragedy here is the people (and there are surely some) that agree with her actions and her motives behind them. Daniel Solomon sustained life-threatening injuries for a vote he never cast, and even if he had, would have ultimately failed to get President Obama the win in the state of Arizona. Holly’s fear was that the President’s second term was going to create hardship for her family. The reality is she herself has created that hardship by nearly killing her husband. The real point is that despite political differences, we still need to be one nation. The Solomon family was a house divided...now a house destroyed.

   As if petitions for secession and family turning on family isn’t enough...there are actual cries for civil war. To clarify, every petition I’ve have seen about secession has been worded as a peaceful act of separation. The problem there is the last time it happened, it was anything but peaceful. Outright acts of civil war are downright insane (in my opinion) and although I’ve had to face the election of a president I did not vote for, did not want...and ultimately (and arguably) was bad for the country, I have never considered the option that my state should not be a part of the country. I never considered committing acts of violence on anyone that didn’t vote as I did...not even when we didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction. Now...the suggestion to take up arms en masse against other citizens...over an election? I'm going to have to pull the insanity card on this one.

   No matter what the future holds, every American is now in the boat together, with one President and one Congress to hash things out. We should do all we can as citizens to facilitate that...and continue to let the process work in the next election cycle. Today, we may be a house divided, but that’s no reason to be a house destroyed tomorrow.

http://gawker.com/Holly-Solomon/

Men and Women: Common Ground

   There has to be a middle ground where the two sexes can meet to really start to understand each other. I mean, men may be from Mars and women might be from Venus, but that doesn’t mean we can’t meet somewhere in the middle here on Earth. With all our differences, there must be some similarities or at least points of reference where we can begin to build a real understanding about each other beyond “all men this” and “all women that.”

    Ok, lets start there. All men are dogs. No...not really, but it’s a common saying among women. It’s not totally without merit since the nature of men to seek out gratuitous sex is more fact than myth, but sweeping generalizations are rarely accurate or advance the cause of understanding. So the first thing than needs to happen is to take “all” out of any statement that blankets the sexes (snicker) and replace it with either “some” or “most” depending on what it is and the available data to support the assertion.

   Now, let me be clear, I’m not an expert on this subject. In fact, I’m severely unqualified since I’m a man (hear the women roar), but I do have some ideas about the subject I’d like to share. My personal observations have led me to a hypothesis that most women are generally more emotional than men...and most men are more intellectually grounded. I’m NOT saying that men aren’t emotional (of course we are), and I’m NOT saying that women aren’t intellectual (of course they are). I’m simply saying that women generally approach things from an emotional view and men generally approach those same things from an intellectual one. Are there exceptions to this...of course!

   Once I came to this conclusion (most unscientifically I might add), I went about exploring the effects of this within the simple conversations and complex communications men and women have. A simple question of “What do you think about this” takes on very different implications depending on who is asking the question...and who is answering. If a woman is asking another woman, or a man another man, then this is a safe question and the conversation will progress in a forward direction. However, if either sex is asking the other...then the miscommunication door is swung wide open, and both parties step through.

   A man asks that question wanting to know the thoughts, the actual intellectual process. A woman asks it also wanting to know the thoughts, but not driven by the intellectual process, but by an emotional one. It would simply be easier for her to ask how does one feel...but those words are interchangeable for a woman. Thoughts and feelings blend for them like peanut butter and chocolate. On the flip side...if she asks a man how he feels about something, he seems to be clueless that she is asking for him to tap into his emotional reservoir, and not call upon his intellectual reasoning. Seems to me that if both sexes take each other literally...a lot of issues need not arise.

   Now...all that said, it’s unlikely anything will change between the sexes...at least not overnight in large numbers. The common ground is not to take each other literally either. That was just a simple observational effort in problem solving. No, the real answer to all this, the real common ground both sexes should meet on is simply an understanding of where each is coming from. Men must understand and remember the emotional base a woman comes from, and interact with her on that base. Tell her what you think, but then go on to tell her how you feel AND ask her how she feels (especially about your response). Women must understand and remember the intellectual base a man comes from and interact with him on that base. Easier said than done to put aside how you feel, but the gains in actual communication will be great.

   Of course, I could be totally wrong in this whole post...but I’ll take the “A” for effort in trying to bridge the gap between the sexes.

Movie Review: "Taken 2"

  I am an ardent fan of the cinematic arts. Although I have certain genre preferences, I don’t let that stifle my curiosity and close myself to different flavors of entertainment. That said...I am a huge fan of science fiction, super hero and action movies! Please visit my other blog The Boxed Office for reviews, exclusively, on these types of movies.

The Cast: 

Liam Neeson

   I’ll say right away that Femke Janssen and Maggie Grace played excellent roles. But if we’re going to discuss this film...it must be acknowledged that this is quite clearly a Liam Neeson movie. Neeson returns as Bryan Mills, with all the butt-kicking skill and focus that he had in the first film. Neeson delivers (of course) and has you thinking through the whole film “Why does anybody even mess with this guy?”

The Plot:

   Bryan Mills is always on time for his appointments...especially those that are most important to him, like taking his daughter for driving lessons. After having here kidnapped before, and barley getting her back in time, he cherishes every moment. The problem is...he killed many people to get his daughter back, and the relatives of those people aren’t very happy with Mills.

   Offering to take his daughter and ex-wife away for a vacation at the end of his business trip, Mills has no idea that forces are in motion to exact revenge against him...and that revenge must take the form of nothing less than the murder of his family, before his own death.

   Once events begin to happen, there is no stopping the collision between the resolve of those that want Mills and his family dead...and his resolve to keep his family alive. Just as in the first film, somebody must get “taken”...and Mills must use every skill he has to get them back...even when he himself is among those taken.

The Verdict: 

   If you are a fan of the first film, you’ll be a fan of this one. The difference I saw is that this film spent a little more time with the development of the character relationships...and I thought it added to the tension of the film when it later showed these people is serious danger.

   The expression of Neeson at finding out his daughter has a boyfriend is absolutely priceless. Seeing him bound and helpless while his wife is hung upside down bleeding out from a partially slit throat...was heartbreakingly disturbing. This movie goes places the first film didn’t and the ride is indeed very wild.

   There is very little humor in this film, although there is some at the beginning. Once the movie gets going, it’s intense and gripping drama with mega doses of action to keep your eyes glued to the screen. I found myself wondering why anyone would continue to feed bodies into the meat grinder that is Neeson...but glad they did. It was enough to dip three and a half (3 1/2) cinnamon sticks, out of five, in this extremely tasty cup of tea.

The Death of Journalism, The Rise of Spin

   News programs and papers have long ago abandoned the tenets of journalism, in favor of rallying the personal point of view of those that run them, and those that fund them. It’s become quite disgusting and really sad that you can no longer just simply get the news. I mean, just an objective report about what’s happening. Instead, you are presented with the events...as seen through the viewpoint of those presenting it. That’s not journalism...that’s spin.

   Let me be crystal clear in the assertion I’m about to make. Newspapers should not be endorsing anyone...except the reader. The same goes for those on television reporting the news...but I’ll get into that later as there is a slight difference from what a newspaper does. In my neck of the woods, the Boston Herald has endorsed Mitt Romney. Across the country, the Salt Lake Tribune has endorsed President Obama. Both men are reeling in the endorsements of newspapers all over the country...and I’m just stunned. Has nobody ever stopped to think about what this all means? It means that every paper that has endorsed a political candidate has invalidated any claim they sought to make of doing objective journalism.

   Why is this important? Well...I remember a time, when I was a child, that I hated to watch the news because I thought it was bland and boring. They were only reporting the facts. I’d look to my mother and ask her what she thought of the reports, and she would give me here take on it. Soon we’d have discussions about what we got from the report (as much as can be had with a seven year old) as I began to form my own opinions. It was a time of being presented with the facts...then you were on your own to determine what they meant to you. Those days are long gone. Media outlets long ago realized the power they had over a now trusting public, got rid of all the real journalists...and started injecting opinions as fact. It’s disgusting.

   I hear cries all the time of the “Liberal Media” and “Conservative Spin” and both sides think the other is pulling one over. They are right, of course. This can easily be seen by watching MSM and FOX...where both clearly slant in opposite directions. It’s like you’re forced to watch both just to get a complete picture of what the heck is going on...but it’s a donut instead since the middle is still missing! To be fair...programs like  the Rachel Maddow Show or the Sean Hannity Show are supposed to be what they are...it’s the whole purpose of their existence. Kudos if you watch these programs and understand it isn’t news you’re watching, but intense and carefully crafted spin. My condolences on the loss of your common sense if this fact escapes you.

   No...I have no beef with those shows. My beef is with MSN “news” and FOX “news” (and all other networks and newspapers that operate the same way) because that slant is how events are being reported. Where has the journalistic integrity gone? Why can’t the anchors and reporters simply sit behind the desk and tell me what’s going on...and keep their opinions to themselves (or worse, the opinions of their bosses). That’s what it really boils down to..."I own this media outlet, and I’m going to push my opinion through it." Well...you push me, I push back.

   When was the last time you saw a news program reporting negatively about a company that sponsors them? It doesn’t happen...no matter how newsworthy the story is. If Pharmaceutical Company X kills thousands of people with their latest poison, but has a commercial spot during the news...then those deaths aren’t news. Like I said...disgusting.

   I see it all the time...and they have the audacity to slam anyone seeking information from the internet. I think it’s amusing that they try to drill us with mantra’s like “Fair and Balanced” when it’s as obvious as rain being wet, that they aren’t. I’d call it sad, except the really sad part is the millions of people that still buy into all this...that have never known a time, like I recall, when news was boring because it was just the facts, or have forgotten (or missed the great switcheroo) the days of respectable journalism.

   When did journalism die? I’ll tell you when it died. It died the day we became willing receivers of propaganda, instead of seekers of truth. It died when we stopped taking personal responsibility for the information we chose to feed ourselves. It died when we supported those that were spinning us...instead of turning the channel on them, or leaving their “news” rag on the shelf, to show them that our brains won’t be washed...and the spin cycle is over on their machine.

   Now...the only question that matters in all of this is...when will journalism be resurrected?

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/21/president-obama-mitt-romney-earn-newspaper-endorsements-swing-states/xbTHK6M1dTfSeAVZxc7sQN/story.html

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/19/salt-lake-tribune-endorses-president-obama-over-mitt-romney-who-organized-city-olympics/VD1ab7itK336ULZ5qsqaXM/story.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

http://www.hannity.com/

http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

The Credit Score Scam

   Credit cards and the companies behind them have hoodwinked the public into believing they are more important than they really are....and doing so at unbelievable profits. It’s gotten to the point that everything is hooked into your credit score. Soon, buying the simplicities of food and clothing will depend on your credit score. I’m exaggerating, but I really won’t be surprised if this becomes true soon.

   A credit score is a snapshot of the risk you pose to a lender should they decide to lend to you. Now, the very fact that if you live without having to borrow from anyone and pay all your bills on time gives you a zero rating should show how flawed the system is. Further proof is reflected in your score from the three credit reporting bureaus, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion...it’s never the same. Heck, they don’t even have the same information most of the time...and much of the information they do have is often wrong.

   I really shouldn’t have to say this but...these companies are NOT on your side. I mean. Let’s be real, when has the big company or corporation ever been on the side of the little guy?

“Despite what most people think, the credit bureaus don't work for consumers, they work for creditors. They will not accept any information from a consumer without indisputable proof, while the creditor just simply needs to make a claim and it is slapped onto your report unverified.”   

                                    

                                                   - The Real Truth About Finance

   So wait, they can say anything, possibly causing a negative effect on your score, which in turn causes lenders to raise the interest rate on you? Uh...yeah, a higher rate means the company gets more money...and it’s all about the corporate profits (duh). It’s getting ridiculous now. There are rates being levied as high as 79.9%. Granted, for a rate that high they are considering you an extremely high risk investment, but really, this is just legal loansharking. The system is bad, but what’s got me really concerned is the application of that system.

   Every time you seek to borrow money, your credit score is going to come into play. Ok...fair enough, but now your credit score is becoming the standard for everything, and it shouldn’t. This system should not be further validated by becoming the guide for other situations. Landlord’s use it to determine if you’re a good candidate for rental. Sounds like a great idea on the surface, but what about that person turned down because of a score on the lower end, that absolutely ranks putting a roof over the heads of them and their children above all else? They may have been late on that credit payment because they paid the rent. I know the mortgage is the most important bill I have because all those other bills don’t matter if I’m homeless.

   How about your credit score being a determining factor in whether you get a job? Essentially, the credit industry has the determining power (with some help from you) over you regarding employment. I think that’s absolutely ridiculous. You pay your cards off, don’t use them for a while...as a consequence, your credit score goes down, and some nitwit looks at this score and decides you’re not going to be able to earn a living? Huh...? Let me be clear, a private company can do as they please, but it’s a reflection on how far gone society is when it has come to this point.

   Just follow the money. It’s all about the money. The Credit Card Act of 2009 was supposed to help the consumer from unfair and predatory practices by the lenders. Somebody should have told lawmakers that the industry would find a way around this...but I suppose it got lost in the sauce as they added an amendment to guns in national parks to the act. The only correlation I can make to guns and credit cards is who you might want to shoot when you get your bill.

http://debtandcredit2.blogspot.com/2008/04/credit-score-scam.html

http://getoutofdebt.org/34139/credit-scoring-is-a-scam-and-a-fraud

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/pf/debt/credit_report/index.htm

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/first-premier-79-rate-fees-credit-card-1265.php

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/01/061301.asp#axzz2A25JzGXb

http://moneyland.time.com/2011/09/23/with-interest-rates-so-low-why-the-heck-are-credit-card-aprs-so-high/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009

The Politics of Common Sense

   If your candidate is Barack Obama, keep reading, he’s in here. If your candidate is Mitt Romney, keep reading, he’s in here. If you are concerned with the direction the country is going, keep reading...that concern is explored. If you’re looking to make sense of the whole political process and fix it...beware, such sentiments will get you labeled as radical, out of touch, and dangerous...but keep reading, it’s in here.

   First topic on deck, the two political parties. Now, I’m sure you’re aware that there are more than two political parties, but if you only get your information from the news (oh, the horror), you would never know this. The three other major political parties, Libertarian, Green and Constitution might as well be straw in the passing gusts of the storms kicked up by the Democratic and Republican parties. Should I even mention the other thirty-three parties? I think it’s ridiculous that in an age where a growing number of people are displeased with the “big two” and moving their affiliation toward “Independent”...that more people aren’t looking for alternatives to open the discussion about what is the greatest good for our country.

   Everything is going down the crapper because we fail to recognize that the biggest problem with politics is money. No, I’m not talking about the economy (yet), I’m talking about the allowance of financial influence in politics. Why do you have to be wealthy to run for office...especially the highest office in the land...? Is it that if you don’t have much money, then you’re unqualified to make decisions, your ideas are automatically useless, and that you obviously lack the intelligence of the worlds smartest mouse? Why is the system designed so that if you don’t have reams of cash, you will never get heard nationally? It’s probably for the same reason our politicians vote on and introduce bills that favor the special interest groups greasing their palms...we’ve let our government go rogue while we get hammered off the spiked kool-aid it gives us.

   So how should our government be run? Mitt Romney thinks running a nation like a business is the way to go. The good in that is if it’s successfully run, the business prospers. The bad is if it isn’t, the business fails. In between all that there are always hard decisions and choices that have to be made in the quest to make the business successful. The real questions are who really prospers when the business does well...and who suffers when it hands out “pink slips” to satisfy the bottom line? A very scary question when applied to the nation as being the business. I’m not sure the example of Wall Street is the way to go with people’s lives.

   Recently Governor Mitt Romney has been accused of “jumping the gun” when he spoke out about Libya as those events were unfolding. To be fair, he is not the first, only...nor will he be the last person to do this on a national stage. I just fail to see why we need to discuss the humanity of being human. I fail to see why we hold our candidates to a higher standard than ourselves...when they are just like us, in every way. This high expectation has them never wanting to admit when they are in error...when that is exactly what they need to do, and then move on.

   Let me quickly highlight a scene from the second Presidential debate, then move onto our President’s bag of woes. I want to clear this issue up...since nobody seems to be able to make sense of what they watched...or just can’t believe their lying eyes. Mitt Romney said...quite clearly, that the President didn’t call the Libya attacks “acts of terror” until two weeks after the attack. He was absolutely wrong in that specific assertion as there is video footage of the President calling the attacks just that (acts of terror) the very next day after the attacks...at a press conference, about the attacks. I say “about the attacks” because the idea going around that the term was just generally used in passing and not associated with the event in question is just...ridiculous. But enough about Governor Romney...the President has got some explaining to do.

   A man makes a video about Islam, and the President goes before world leaders and apologizes for it. Somebody help me...cause I don’t get that. Unless this man was a government official, I fail to see what it has to do with the President. Further...in THIS country, we have something called freedom of speech and freedom of expression, two of our core values, I don’t ever see a place where an apology must be levied in the exercise of either. Let me even stretch for the President on this one...even if he felt the need to apologize, where was the acknowledgment, to the world, of our free speech values...?

   So...Libya is the new hot spot. Our embassy is attacked, and our compatriots are killed. The President calls this “acts of terror” the very next day...but thereafter for two weeks, those words, and terms are not associated with the attack by the administration. I asked for help a little while ago, and I still need it now...because I just don’t get it. Now, to be fair to the President (as I was with Mr. Romney), this gaffe (and right now, I have no other way to describe it) is not a sum reflection of the entirety of his foreign policy. We are out of Iraq and Bin Laden is dead. Presumably, going after those that killed some of ours is on the agenda, but none of this explains the two week video pitch.

   Now President Barack Obama wants to push forward. He believes we have gained much ground, but there is still much more work to do. I don’t think anyone would dispute this as an understatement. The question is will the President be the best option to get that work done? In contrast to running the country like a business or corporation, is continuing to push forward with the policies that have been implemented...and new ones from the same house of ideas. If the policies are starting to show gain, then is it wise to change captains now? Then again, what certainty is there that the next four years will continue to gain at all? Tough questions with very few answers.

   Let’s take a quick look at this debacle we have called the political system, again with specifics that pertain to what is happening right now. The President’s ideas are introduced as  legislature in Congress (House of Representatives and Senate) to be enacted into law should both of them vote favorably. The Republicans, when holding a majority in the House vowed to block the President...no matter what. A fact many forget when pointing the finger at the President for what hasn’t been done. However, when the Democrats held a majority in both the House and the Senate...it was the same result.

   See...I can do this all day. I can write hundreds of posts about the failings of both Republicans and Democrats. I think the more important point is that we all should understand the process and insist on some political straight talk. Nothing happens quickly with government. Nobody can correct an economic downturn as severe as ours in just four years...nobody. Even President Clinton, touted as being an economically successful president (debatable), didn’t do so until well into his second term...and even then, the economic woes of President Bush’s terms didn’t start when he took office. They were already underway from the previous administration’s policies. Are we still feeling the effects of Bush?...absolutely, and Clinton. What will be the effects of Obama? Stick around until 2017 to find out...regardless if he’s re-elected or not. That’s how the process works....or doesn’t work, depending on your point of view and patience.

   This post is noticeably longer than usual, but...a little common sense goes a long way.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/17/exclusive_expanding_the_debate_with_third

http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm

http://dkidiscussion.blogspot.com/2012/01/political-straight-talk.html

http://dkidiscussion.blogspot.com/2012/08/congressional-reform-act-good-start.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(United_States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)