My Town Square

COULD THIS BE POSSIBLE IN NORTH AMERICA?

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:57:05 PDT

You've probably heard about it in World News reports recently, and there was / and is, an initial reaction of disbelief, followed by excuses - some of which you hear mentioned on this hidden camera video - and of course, there will always be good old media and political 'spin'. Case in point - I've even seen some folks completely discounting the video simply because it comes from CBN! I guess we all have our own biases - reasonable or not... Well, now you can see this CBN report for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Keep in mind that the concept of global Jihad doesn't have to mean violence; it's possible - as this video seems to indicate - to take over a neighbourhood, a society, a government, or even a country,  by working in all kinds of subtle ways, from the inside.   Some folks in New York are up in arms because they believe that that's exactly what the building of the Islamic Community Centre close to Ground Zero is all about.

Lack of awareness, fear of repraisal or ridicule, or even our own sense of fairness and Democracy, not to mention the scourge of Political Correctness, can lead to situations like this, where one day, a neighbourhood wakes up and finds itself coming under the influence of Sharia law, whether it wants it or not.

What do you think?   Is this exaggeration, false, anti-muslim propaganda, or a reason to be concerned?

Leave your comment for others to see and participate in the dialogue.

JUST A WARNING:   Keep it polite, bigotry, racist remarks, or obscenity will simply be removed and get you banned from my site, so save your breath if that's your motive.

Survey: Americans don't know much about religion (OneNewsNow.com)

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:24:31 PDT

Survey: Americans don't know much about religion (OneNewsNow.com)

Click on the link above to prove you're an exception to that statement! Take a fairly simple - I can say that because I took it - test and evaluate your own level of knowledge in this area. Tell me your score, and I'll tell you mine!!!! Leave a note in the comments box and I'll get back to you - promise!

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 04:44:40 PDT

PUTTING VISTA ON A DIET. part 1.

I'd had my Vista Home Premium for about a year when I realised that what had seemed like a huge disk drive was registering as already full, when it shouldn't have been even half-way there!   I did various Internet searches, read, read, and read, and downloaded various recommended programs and tried them.

It was obvious I wasn't alone in this disk gobbling problem with Vista - I'd had many others, and this one, like all the rest, was getting little response from Redmond except comments that implied, "it's probably YOU!" "You've gt a virus..", "It's your omputer", "It's somebody else's software..." etc. etc.
Tired?   You bet I was!   Frustrated?   Yep, and ready to ask them to do the old "Return to Me - Cara Mia XP-ah!" and so on.   But, you want to know, did I solve it?   YessireeBob!   Well, technically speaking, I didn't - but I found lot's of information from many other people smarter than I, who had found various solutions, such as these folks at My Digital Life.   I followed their great directions, and eventually solved my particular version of the Disappearing Hard Disk Dilemma. So here's what I've done - I've put them all together in this one place, so that you don't have to spend so many hours searching the net for answers.

Here it is, with this caveat:  I didn't write most of this, I've collected various clippings, edited some for clarity, and the websites and information is all the property of the original posters.   I'm putting it here - claiming no originality or authorship - purely because I believe those folks who wrote in various locations, want people to be able to solve that horrible Vista issue we're talking about.   I'm just collecting the info here, in one place, for the benefit of those same people. If - as an original author - you're somehow offended, or feel that this is an infringement on copyright of your particular article - I do apologise; please let me know and I'll be happy to remove the offending reference or quote, or give special credit or other disclaimers above and beyond those already offered here.   Some of the information came from Fora and I have no record of the original sites or posts.

OK - that said, here's the information with appropriate hyperlinks to give credit where I can, - I sincerely hope it helps, and saves you time.   It was invaluable to me, as I hope it will be to you.

1.   Compress all folders except Windows and Programs, by clicking on “properties” then on “Advanced” the radio button which says “compress folder and contents”, press Apply, then when choice comes up, press “compress all files and subfolders” then press OK and exit. Should barely slow down operation at all on a fast computer and will save a lot of HD space.

2.   Loss of disk space due to shadow storage for system recovery:
Changed mine on C to 4 gig by using command line: 3.   Some of the big disk space occupiers are found by the following processes and their associated files:
vssadmin resize shadowstorage /on=c: /for=c: /maxsize=4GB
Now reduced to 1Gig with this command:
vssadmin resize shadowstorage /on=C: /for=C: /maxsize=1GB

3.   Hiberfil.sys Hibernation File
hiberfil.sys is a hidden system file in system drive, which has the same size with the amount of physical memory (RAM). hiberfil.sys is used to store state of system memory that computer goes into hibernation mode so that the last used state can be restored when the computer is powered on again. If you’re not using hibernation mode, disable hibernation mode and delete hiberfil.sys file will save users a few gigabytes of space. If the hiberfil.sys still exists after hibernation feature is turned off, you can safely delete the file.

4.   pagefile.sys Virtual Memory Paging File
All Windows operating system use virtual memory paging file for storing crucial system data when physical memory (RAM) running out of space. Typically, Windows, including Vista by default set the system managed paging file size to 1.5 times the size of system memory, and automatically adjusts the size depending on system usage. Unfortunately, the size of pagefile.sys generally getting bigger and bigger. For system with large RAM it’s possible to reduce or even delete pagefile.sys file. For users with just 512 MB or 1 GB, it’s recommended to keep the system recommended virtual memory paging file. If you want to make more free space available on the system drive (C:\), it’s possible to move the pagefile.sys to another drive, or set the maximum size for the pagefile.sys paging file, typically at 1.5 times the size of memory. If your system has memory of 2G and above, it’s possible to turn off virtual memory and set no paging file at all. In fact, by doing so, Windows will probably run at faster speed. To do so, refer to guide at manage, change or set paging file size in Vista.

(I HAD SET THIS TO NO PAGINF FILE ALL DRIVES S0 THIS WAS NOT MY PROBLEM, but try this for yourself and see if it makes a difference)

5.   Application and Program Cache of Superfetch Feature
Windows SuperFetch loads and caches user programs and startup applications into memory so that they will be launched faster. The prefetch is stored on your hard disk, which can be deleted. To delete the prefetch cached by SuperFetch, delete all files inside “C:\Windows\prefetch” folder.

6.   Temporary Files Created by Running Programs
Most temporary files are created and stored in “\Windows\Temp” folder or “Temp” directory under each and every user profile. To delete the temporary files, remove all files and folders under “C:\Windows\Temp” folder and “C:\Users\[logged on user name]\AppData\Local\Temp” folder.

7.   Temporary Internet Files or Cache Stored by Web Browsers
The temporary Internet files or cache can grow bigger and bigger over time. Deletion method differs by each different web browser. For IE, go to “Internet Options”, delete delete “Temporary Internet Files” and “Cookies”. For FireFox, click on “Clear Private Data” and delete “Cache” and “Cookies”.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2 of this article will be coming soon - no coyness, I'm simply trying to avoid a Blog item so long that no-one bothers to read it. If you've ever had this HD problem, I know you'll want to see the rest of this article, so keep checking back, it'll be up soon.

I'm Tel Mack,
and this is how I found it!

America's Got Talent Problems!

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:02:06 PDT

Will America be Fighting Gravity? Is the Prince Poppycock? Will the results make Michael Grim(m)?

What can I say about 10 year old Jackie Evancho?   She doesn't fit into those homonyms, and she doesn't fit with those acts either - she's in a class of her own.

Let's look at tonight on AGT.

Fighting-Gravity did slip up tonight, and in doing so, they reminded me of what has been on the edge of my awareness each time I've seen them - they're a black light act, similar to Blue Man and others - not really unique, and nowhere near as polished, although, for a group of students, they've certainly worked hard and pushed the boundaries.

The 'idea' of Fighting-Gravity - if not the troupe themselves - will probably have a short run on a small Vegas stage somewhere, but even after 15 minutes of it, I can see it getting old, fast! They will need much more polish, and will have to step it up quite a few notches to compete in Vegas.

As much as I hate to say it, Piers Morgan called it, when he said that Prince Poppycock risked it all by almost leaving his deliberately foppish character and attempting Nesun Dorma as a serious operatic singer tonight.   It raises the inevitable question - Which are you Prince?   An artistic stage-Fop who revels in the costume, and over-the-top dialogue, and who happens to have a fairly good operatic style, or a serious operatic Tenor who happens to be able to design great costumes and makeup?  One is a Vegas act in the making, the other is a good - but still not outstanding - operatic singer who wouldn't hold his own with the better known Tenors in the music world today.   As the foppish Prince Poppycock, I could see a glam show, with the typical Vegas glitz, being successful for at least a season, if not more, as a great novelty.   But I'd suggest you keep it there Prince, you've set your mould, don't break it, because in the straight (no pun intended) operatic performance world, you don't (yet) have what it takes.

Michael Grimm's story is so heart rending that I've wondered aloud several times, whether it's all a little too convenient a tale - the heartache, the Grand-folks, hurricane Katrina, the sudden illness during competition, only to rise again to the occasion, and the weekly renditions of, "I want to repay my Grandparents for all they've done..."?    Or is it really an all too true American story?

I love his voice, and regardless of whether his story is solid, Michael deserves a shot in the Biz - a good agent and manager can take that voice a long way - even to a good quality Vegas club stage, and beyond.

Jackie Evancho is in a league of her own.   Here's the conundrum:  without a doubt this tiny tot, at ten, has an incredible vocal ability that sounds more like a well trained 25 or 30 year old Soprano.   Despite having a couple of breath control issues and almost loosing her spin to a faster, nervous vibrato at one point tonight, she performed beautifully.  It's so odd to see such depth coming from that little body, that it almost defies description.   Undoubtedly she has a wonderful vocal gift - especially for a ten year old!   But will she continue to be outstanding as her physical age catches up to her vocal precociousness?    Is she a huge talent - another Charlotte Church and even more - or is she simply a huge talent because she's ten?

Whatever the answer may be to that question, the reality is that even in a year of fairly outstanding talent, Jackie Evancho is a phenom!   In addition - and it helps - she's been consistently incredible, and incredibly likable.   So, despite what I would suspect is a fairly secure future as an artiste, having performed at a number of Gala events - as well as having garnered David Foster's interest - before she ever came on AGT, I think that Jackie wins.    We'll See tomorrow whether America sees it that way, but regardless, Jackie wins!

I'm Tel Mack,
   telling it as I see it.

Missionaries? What On Earth.....

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:37:13 PDT

So what are Missionaries, and what kinds of things do they do?

Well, simply put, they're ordinary folks like you and me, with an extraordinary commitment first and foremost to Jesus Christ, and then, because of, and through Him, to others.

That service to others can take many forms; if you can think of it, Missionaries are needed somewhere to do it! They come from many parts of the world, and go to many parts of the world.

They are mostly not salaried folks - they are frequently volunteers. Many give up home and possessions to do this, but as a dedicated follower of Jesus, you can often serve as a short term Missionary - while keeping your regular job and your home - and still accomplish great things. What follows is just a single example of what a small team - with a lot of preparation beforehand - from a Church in Frisco, Texas, accomplished in just over a week.

No, this is not about me, nor is it about my Church, at least, not in the sense of a building that I attend. But I'm thankful to be able to say that our son Les, and his wife, Nidelvia, were part of this serving team of Christians. This is not the first time they've served in this way, it's just the first time I'm writing about it - hope it answers some of your questions. Why not ask in your local Church, or a Christian friend, if you want to know more - or write me, I'd be happy to hear from you, and will do my best to answer, or re-direct any questions you may have. Read on for the report from Guatemala, Central America.

Stonebriar Community Church, Frisco, Texas.
- Report from Guatemala, August 2010 -

Dear Friends,

Nidelvia and I thank you for your support. Without your help, our trip together would not have been possible. Here are some of the great things of which we were privileged to be a part.

On our way to the clinic ministry, we stopped for this shot standing in front of Lake Atitlan and one of her volcanoes. The villages we served are located around the perimeter of this enormous lake (can take up to 1 hour to cross by boat, although we drove in a van).

Les assisting in Dental Clinic in the village of Churacruz

Helping dentists with equipment and patient set-up, oral suction, even pulling teeth. Not bad for a guy who hates the sight of blood! It was rewarding to provide free services to these villagers and their children.

Nidelvia provides patient intake at the medical clinic in the village of Churacruz

Nidelvia stood at the front doors to the clinic and took patient information, translating for the English speaking nurse. Many of the villagers only spoke a Mayan dialect, so we often had 3-way translation: Mayan to Spanish to English! Our team served over 1/3 of the population in this village over 3 days.

Les teaching at the Pastor’s Conference in Panajachel

With the translation assistance of Carlos Zazueta (our church’s Spanish pastor), I, Larry Meeker, and Carlos were honored to train 29 village pastors and church leaders.

Our conference topic:
The Character of a Leader
We covered authenticity, maturity, credibility, integrity, humility, and unity. And for the first time ever in this region, several pastors rose above denominational divides to form the first-ever Pastor’s Alliance! This was incredible affirmation to us as instructors, and a huge step forward for the future unity of the church in Guatemala.

Small group exercises require unity

One of several small group exercises we employed in the learning process. But it not only helped them learn the material, it also not-so-subtly required the pastors to work together, helping them to listen and learn from one another, ultimately fleshing out the concept of unity.

Nidelvia teaching in the
Women’s Conference

Nidelvia is teaching principles from a session she wrote from the book of Ruth, chapter 2. She taught the principle that when God’s people live godly lives they will experience God’s provision.

Nidelvia, Soraya Marin (red top), Michele Eastin (next to Soraya), and Bego Meeker (sitting by white door in center) each taught from the book of Ruth, shared testimonies, and even dramatized the story of Ruth in a play.

Poverty and disease are common

This typifies a village home, one room made of cinder block walls with a patchy tin roof and a dirt floor. Every home’s garden in the back is contaminated by their toilet room, also in the back, where rainfall washes human waste across the vegetables. This leads to many diseases, conditions which are often treated at the clinic we served in.

Panajachel

This is the small town where we were based for most of our trip. Lots of cars, bikes, pedestrians, and pollution share the narrow cobble streets.

The little 3-wheel covered golf carts are actually taxis! (There are three in this shot - can you spot them?) They call them Tut-Tuts because of the sound they make: “tut-tut-tut-tut-tut-tut…”.

All People in All Places

As beautiful as Guatemalan culture is, the Guatemalan people are more so. As a church, we are compelled by the Great Commission to bring the hope of the Gospel to all people in all places. We were deeply privileged to serve these people.

Nidelvia and I thank

you sincerely for your support and prayers.

With Gratitude, Les and Nidelvia August 2010

He's No Adam Lambert!

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:41:32 PDT

IS THIS THE END OF AMERICAN IDOL? If they don't turn it around this year, that's what I'm guessing.! Remember last year?!! This was the way it was - read my last comment, then check into the fears and tremblings going on about who can possibly be on the Panel this year.

Here were the unremarkable crew, just to refresh your memory.

Casey James may turn Kara's Krank, but when it comes to singing and performance he's certainly no Adam Lambert. James was one of the best of what I would call a lacklustre bunch tonight, but his performance relied more on his shirt and hair, than on vocal calibre and style. His nervousness was evident in a total lack of spin control, and the whole thing was understated.

What about the rest? Well, Andrew Garcia let himself down with a song that simply didn't fit his smooth smokey style; Big Daddy Michael Lynche seemed nervous too, but he knows who he is, and his cool R & B style should take him a long way - once he gets over the stage fright which seemed to affect everybody tonight.

The only other notable this night was young Aaron Kelly - the 'baby' of the group who - as everybody put it - doesn't yet realise he deserves to be there. Hope he doesn't loose too much humility when he finally becomes the confident performer they want him to show them. He certainly has the look and clean-cut style of the Jonas ilk, and a voice that will sell with the teenage girls who will be most of the voting audience.

For the rest, a few comments should do it:

Todrick Hall's performance was called 'stupid' by Simon, and he was right. This young guy has to realise that creative styling all over the melody line isn't always better than the original. Not everything goes with a black lick. Simon's 'Dancer trying to be a Singer' description cut to the quick - hopefully not the Quick and the Dead! We could stand seeing him again, if he can learn to sing it straighter. Behind the scenes rumours about this performer's dealings with a stage production which left parents out of pocket, and many kids disappointed, are coming to light. Amazing what the bright searchlight of publicity brings into view.

Jermaine Sellers wants us to know he's a "Church singer' whatever that means... I'm a Church singer too, every Sunday in fact, but I don't expect a whole lot of applause for that! Wonder if he means a Cantor, a la Jewish congregation, or perhaps a Worship Leader, a la contemporary Praise and Worship, or lead voice a la Gospel choir? Whatever he means, the one thing that stands out about Jermaine is that he is very full of Jermaine - I'd like to see a little more Holy Spirit humility in his conversation and presentation.

Tim Urban had been eliminated from the contest, but was brought back when producers kicked Chris Golightly, apparently because of an outstanding contract he'd only recently signed!
Booted 'American Idol' Contestant Chris Golightly Blasted By Ex-Manager
Dude! What were ya thinkin'? So Tim gets another shot, and shoots himself in the foot with it. Simon summed it up well when he told the crestfallen croaker that the Judges had made the right decision the first time, by passing him up. Tim himself analysed it best though, when he sang Apologise! ('tried to' might be better!) I reckon he only came back to leave again - if he doesn't get the high jump tomorrow, it'll be soon.

Joe Munoz was pleasantly average - nerves, nerves, nerves - almost everybody's problem tonight - but he's got the chops as they say, to step it up yet, hope he gets the chance.

Tyler Grady left himself rather off-key when he decided that his Rock performance of American Woman really needed him to scream. Maybe it did, but we didn't! Very much the pretender, as some of the Judges noted; wonder if he'll get bold enough to sing something natural to his real voice, and throw away the 70's image. It might have impressed the kiddies back home when he was at school, but it's not going to take him to the top in this setting.

Lee Dewyze was good, but had off-key patches whenever he pushed it. In fact so many guys were off tonight, that I wonder whether they could hear themselves well over the band. You've sung with headphones on, to your favourite tune, and had somebody tell you how it sounded like the dying screams of an amazon parrot haven't you? Or is it just me?

John Park had a completely out-of-control spin which showed he was on the edge of total panic. I think he tried to smother it by being rigidly stone-faced. As a result the Judges thought he failed to emote - true, and they were unimpressed. John sang such an out-dated and old fashioned version of God Bless the Child that the only thing that would have made it more schlocky would have been treacle. I think John's for the high jump tomorrow, and he may have gotten a start on it from his Dad's foot - something about 'we're a poor family who need the money' kinda thing? Pop was definitely not pleased by son's explanation of his song choice.

Alex Lambert could be a dark horse, if he can get over the 1. fact that he's never really sung to a large audience before, and 2. all this is more than he'd ever dreamed of when he entered just for fun. He has a great and quirky vocal style, but he got lost in the song tonight, and forgot he's not still singing in the shower. Come on Alex, you can do this!

In summary, I'm still waiting to be impressed. I think maybe Adam Lambert spoiled it all for me last year. He was one of those once in a decade voices that make everything else pale to insignificance - and he was outstanding from the start. This year has been a very dodgey start altogether. The contestants seem unusually nervous, the sound seems unusually poorly balanced, Seacrest seems unusually low key, and the Judges seem unusually boring...

Did Lambert take away the whole point, and did we loose a magical additive when Paula left? Imagine what it'll be like without the Cowell analytical sarcasm! Dullsville friends!! Maybe time to turn to another show.

HOW TO FAIL ON AMERICAN IDLE - OOPS - IDOL!

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:43:29 PDT

Well Simon, way to be way off on your opening remarks; so the girls are going to knock it out of the park are they? Not this bunch performing tonight! Talk about pitiful!

This was a bunch of star-stuck kids who think they're there 'cos they're on TV. Over and over the judges said, "Be different, show us who you are..." and over and over the girls said, "I'm Melissa, I'm Michael, I'm really nobody special. I sing like lots of other people - only, not so well."

Sorry girls, but even if pity was the criterion by which you could win, you couldn't even stir up enough of that to get you through. I think it's going to be the guys who knock it out of the park, and I don't know if these girls have star quality at all - anywhere amongst that dismal dozen. Maybe they'll wake up when a couple get canned; maybe then it'll dawn on them that the sole objective wasn't just to get on American Idol and faff around in front of a TV camera.

And by the way, what's with the sound tonight Ricky? The band was barely there most of the time on the main audio feed. Don't know what it was like in the studio, but hey, when there's pitiful little coming from the so-called artist, and no presence from the orchestra, you're putting up with a bunch of nothing, and that's what Idol gave us tonight. I should have stayed with the Olympics, or slept through it, but my wife kept waking me up to show me how bad it was, only to see me lulled back to Morpheus' arms by another boring performance.

Oh I know, 'it's just the first night', but guess what, that's not really an excuse; they've been through that grueling Hollywood week, they've seen and experienced pressure to perform, they've said 'goodbye' to new friends and old family members - now's the time to earn your keep, step it up a whole bunch of notches, or go back to Little Plume, Arkansippi, or wherever it is you came from. Snap to it ladies, this was one of the worst first nights we've seen in a long time, and nobody stood out. We need something with some punch, class, quality and originality... I know, right here, this is what we needed tonight:

Seacrest was so uninvolved tonight, I even missed his 'dahling' and Cowell baiting. The Judges seemed at a loss for something different to say, and Helen, for crying out loud, these aren't such vulnerable little kiddies that you have to keep on reassuring them, 'But I liked you, you went kinda sharp there, but I liked you." Even Simon wasn't his usual caustic self tonight; all in all it was a very dumbed down version of American Idle... oops, I did it again.

I'm Tel Mack,
telling it as I see it.

DID YOU FEEL IT?

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:01:25 PDT

Must have been a trembler somewhere around here - 2:10 a.m. I know one is scheduled for the Seattle area any time now. They say it's going to be a biggie, but this one was fairly small here - felt like a car hit the side of the house! Shook a few things enough to make 'em rattle, and I went to see if my ever-loving was alright... still sleeping soundly.

Funny feeling that sideways motion, almost makes you feel nauseated. I guess we're not used to things moving from side to side so much, scrambles the old semi-circular cannals, especially when you can't see anything moving. Surprised my pooch didn't wake up, usually animals know when quakes are coming - cows lie down, dogs howl and run around, elephants... well, I don't know what elephants do, but I wouldn't want to be nearby if one fell over!

Can you tell it's late? Nothing coming in on my Blog roll yet; oh well, just have to wait until the morning - wait, it IS the morning, think I'd better get to bed. Shouldn't be up so late at my age, but look what I'd have missed. (Nope, it wasn't worth waiting up for!)

I'm Tel Mack,
feeling it like it was.

Olympic Anarchy

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:45:04 PDT

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of punks coming into our beautiful cities and deciding they're going to use any excuse to practice their form of political protest. Of course, their form of protest is declared by their leaders - if you can get them to come out from behind their cowardly masks - it's Anarchy.

Anarchy has become attractive to the disenchanted young adults of today, just as Communism was attractive to the misguided misfits of the late 50's and 60's. It's amazing how often the answer to what may sometimes be legitimate concern, seems to devolve to the lowest common denominator - "Let me do what I want." In other words, lawlessness.

It means "I can smash property if I want, I can wreck you car if you're foolish enough to think it's safe leaving it on the street in the middle of the day in a decent neighbourhood. I can disrespect authority, rabble-rouse, smash and grab, and then run." All in the name of this not-so-new freedom.

The reality is, there have been, and always will be, malcontents who don't fit in, don't want to in fact. They care so little about everyone else that they can wreak havoc in the name of their cause, and never accept responsibility for the outcome. What was it supposed to be this time? Oh yes, protesting the Olympics...

Now, how exactly, does smashing my car, smashing my windows, and wrecking my property, make a point about excess spending, or the need for housing for the poor? Won't we now have to spend hundreds of thousands more on policing, on repairs, on the increased costs of Damage and Fire Insurance for business owners and residents of the area? Oh yes, of course YOU will, but the anarchist? Well, they owe allegience to nothing and no-one, and in fact, they probably don't own anything themselves either, that's part of their discontent. You see, somehow, society - which apparently owes them a living - has short changed them, and left them in this sorry state. Didn't you know, it's all OUR fault. So - the bottom line of what they believe in, as an Anarchist? Screw you! That's their answer.

What's OUR answer going to be? I say, "Book 'em Dano!" Bust 'em, track 'em down and break 'em up before they ever get started rabble rousing. To me, anyone who needs to go around wearing a face mask in the middle of the day, is up to no good, and has given up the right to be treated as a harmless spectator.
The Police are to be commended for showing such incredible restraint in the face of these supposedly peaceful demonstrators. If they simply intended to quietly protest, why did they need to cover their faces? If they had no harmful intent, how did a mail box end up thrown through the window of a Bank? And how, exactly, does any of this make any point about the Olympics?

I'm sorry, but when you attack the property of innocent citizens, when you cause damage to the property and reputation of the place where I live, you've lost all right to be heard. You sir, (sorry I misspelled that) you cur, are the enemy, and I sincerely hope that the police treat you as such. I'm tired of hooligans getting a little slap on the wrist and going back out into our cities to do the same thing over and over again, simply because thy're maladjusted miscrients who haven't learned that an honest day's pay comes from an honest day's work, and politically correct judges won't hand down the kind of sentences that will get through the thick numb-skulls of these jerks. Contribute to society if you want to live in it! If you don't want to work, and don't want to participate in orderly debate and reasonable discourse - and anarchists by definition don't want anything as organised as "society", or as civilised as debate - then get out of my town! Get out of this society! Try living among the warlords of Somalia, or Afghanistan; try living in real anarchy, but far, far away from me and mine!

But no, of course they won't, it's the very democracy that they claim to despise, which allows them the freedoms of which they take such gross advantage. Until, eventually, they, and their successors, will have destroyed the very fabric of society, and they will get to see what a whole world of real anarchy will look like. I'm glad I shall be gone!

HAITIAN AFTERSHOCK - Making the Most of Your Money

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:46:24 PDT

Bill Gates earns $5.5 Billion a year, which is $105.769 Million a week, which is $629,578 an hour, which is $10,492 a minute, which is $174.88 a second. Can you even imagine that? I can't - I'm watching Canadian TV raising funds for Haiti, encouraging giving folks in Canada to give again, when a donation of $100,000 comes in and everyone applauds - and Bill made $21,000 just while I was writing this paragraph!

Oprah makes US$433 per minute. Good ol' Simon Cowell makes about $90 million a year, and while folks love or hate his Brit-wit and sarcasm, he laughs all the way to the Bank.

Larry King makes around 14 million a year. Jay Leno makes around 16 million a year. I hear that Conan – for being canned, (no, let’s call it ‘Severance’, it sounds so much cleaner, more erudite…) will receive some 32 million dollars. Hmmm! A great way to lose out eh? Boy, I wonder how he'll survive on such a pittance? What on earth will he do now? I mean, he'll have to find a way to make a living won't he???

In case you’re wondering, a list from Forbes, of some of the highest paid athletes last year, included these good folk:
Tiger Woods, golf - $110 million (I guess that was before HIS personal
earthquake…)
Kobe Bryant, basketball - $45 million (I guess to set a record it helps to have a record)
Michael Jordan, basketball - $45 million

Kimi Raikkonen, NASCAR- $45 million

David Beckham, soccer/football - $42 million

Lebron James, basketball - $40 million

Phil Mickelson, golf - $40 million

Manny Pacquiao, boxing - $40 million

Valentino Rossi, motorcycling - $35 million

Dale Earnhardt Jr., NASCAR - $34 million

Roger Federer, tennis - $33 million

Shaquille O'Neal, basketball - $33 million

Oscar de la Hoya, boxing - $32 million

Lewis Hamilton, NASCAR - $32 million

Alex Rodriguez, baseball - $32 million
Vijay Singh, golf - $31 million
Kevin Garnett, basketball - $30 million
Jeff Gordon, NASCAR - $30 million
Derek Jeter, baseball - $30 million

That' a whole pile of the green stuff isn't it? But even those stellar incomes paled to insignificance compared to the real money folk – the ones behind the scenes, the Movers and Shakers, the Masters of Industry, the people who really make our world go round, but stay out of sight. Well, they’re revealed for your titillation, just a click away; you’ll see enough wealth to make you sick, when you think of how our world operates in crisis after crisis. Check out the stats and then come on back as we talk about it!
Wikipedia lists the world's richest billionaires as of February 13, 2009

Amazing isn't it - so here’s the low-down – here’s what makes it all so sick: the CIA World Fact Book lists the Haitian Gross Domestic Product per Capita at $790 US or just over 7 billion dollars in 2009. Prior to this tragedy of such nation crushing proportions, foreign aid made up approx 40% of Haiti's budget, with the United States and Canada being by far the largest donors. Some 80% of the population were living in poverty.

Where were the cries for housing, hospitals, food and medicine then? Well, if you're a regular supporter of Missions, chances are you've not only heard of Haiti, but you've known of the terrible state of the country, and maybe even been on a short term work mission there. If you're one of those individuals, you heard the cry, even 'tho it wasn't bounced around the world by sattelite. You know that that situation has persisted for decades.

In Sept 2009, the country’s external debt of some 1.3 billion US, was cancelled by the World Bank under conditions established by the International Monetary fund, which you could say boil down to, “We’re never gonna get it back no matter how long we wait, let’s stop dreaming.”

Then January 12 ticks into the late afternoon, and the nation literally collapsed. Superstructure, infrastructure, his structure and her structure... what little was left of a country already decimated by stark unrelenting poverty and corruption, was virtually wiped out in 40 seconds!

Terrible, horrible, devastating, we feel we don’t have enough adjectives to describe it, and they’re all true, BUT… another reality is that, despite that tragic event, the real wealth of the world – presently in the hands of individuals like those listed above – could provide the resources and recruit the manpower to clear, rebuild, reforest, and re-establish this country, a dozen times over, if there was a will and a determination to do so in the lofty halls of power and finance around the world.

Unfortunately, the corruption inherent in Haitian politics since the end of the revolution in 1803 - with the machinations of numerous dictators, and the conniving of off-shore colonial self–interest - continues today. The sad fact is that no-one can guarantee that large investments would not be squandered, or diverted to serve a small, but greedy and powerful group of Haitian elite, as in the past.

Then too, there is no assurance that the recipients of such extensive funding would distribute it equitably and selflessly, putting the needs of the country above their own. Attempts to oversee, or supervise the use and distribution of funds in order to ensure the anticipated result, often bring cries of “Colonialist", “Invader”, and even “Occupier".

Such uncertainty then, tends to become the ready-made reason (as if they needed one) for the risk-averse Wealthy of our world to withhold their finances, while the “Celebrity Cheering section” encourage the rest of us to step up to the plate without being so risk conscious.

It’s a well known ‘donation’ statistic, that 80% of Charitable giving comes from the bottom 20% of wage earners. The middle and low income people of our Western society are constantly the sacrificial givers, supporting charitable works around the world, and I’m sure that will be the case once again, here in Haiti. Yet the sad fact is, that many of the world’s wealthiest individuals, could single-handedly fund the medical, engineering, and horticultural missions needed to re-establish this nation, indeed, to do far more than simply restore it. Imagine what could happen if that list of business families decided to do more than simply donate what they know the tax man would take anyway, and seriously got together to buy a future for a country! (notice I didn't say 'buy a country', which might be more in line with the thinking of some of the world's great financiers).

When I see so many Celebrities jump on the bandwagon encouraging you and I to ‘Give, give, give’, I can’t help but wonder when the seriously Wealthy will step up, and assume their proportionate share of that 80% of giving that the rest of us are being counted on to finance. If we are to believe the lessons of history, the likely answer, I'm sorry to say, is… never. So - sick as it is - it remains up to us, the literally low-down wage earners (at the bottom end of the scale), to suck it up, and put up what we can - knowing that we're doing a disproportionate 80% of the giving. Don't feel bad about that Fiver you phoned in on your cell, it's people like you who really do make the difference!

I'm Tel Mack,
telling it as I see it.

Links for 2010-02-24 [del.icio.us]

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 PST

My Town Square: He's No Adam Lambert!
Did Lambert take away the whole point, and did we loose a magical additive when Paula left? Imagine what it'll be like without the Cowell analytical sarcasm! Dullsville friends!! Maybe time to turn to another show.

Links for 2010-02-23 [del.icio.us]

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:00:00 PST

My Town Square: HOW TO FAIL ON AMERICAN IDLE - OOPS - IDOL!
step it up a whole bunch of notches, or go back to Little Plume, Arkansippi, or wherever it is you came from. Snap to it ladies, this was one of the worst first nights we've seen in a long time, and nobody stood out. We need something with some punch, class, quality and originality... I know, right here, this is what we needed tonight:

Links for 2010-01-22 [del.icio.us]

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:00:00 PST

My Town Square: HAITIAN AFTERSHOCK - Making the Most of Your Money
Bill Gates earns $5.5 Billion a year, which is $105.769 Million a week, which is $629,578 an hour, which is $10,492 a minute, which is $174.88 a second. Can you even imagine that? I can't - I'm watching Canadian TV raising funds for Haiti, encouraging giving folks in Canada to give again, when a donation of $100,000 comes in and everyone applauds - and Bill made $21,000 just while I was writing this paragraph!

Power Director video - OLYMPIC DIVER?

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:19:08 PST

The following are details re: the production of a You Tube Power Director video, for those who have the PD software and are interested in such things. For those who don't have the software, I highly recommend it. I've used Pinnacle in the past, and although it is somewhat better in title production, if you're prepared to spend extra money to buy extra add-ons, it falls behind Power director 8 in overall ease of use. PD gives you maximum 'bang for your buck' and reliability from clips to final Hi-quality DVD or BlueRay. Check back periodically to see future work. This one was simply a segment taken out of a much larger project for fun. Nothing was posed - this was general activity shot at long range from a public beach.

The Title used 'Tor 4 titel" with 'bang explosion' and 'star trail 01' placed behind it. Used a colour board in the video master track, to provide a clean background for the scrolling text, with a fade into the first fame and the two PIPs.

Scrolling text in an empty Title box gave the narrative and I added the spiral in and out text "Olympic Gold" to the same text box at the half way point - co-ordinating it with the scrolling text.

Additional Sound: The Rocky Fanfare was downloaded from Freesound, also the crowd sounds and applause in the background. The echo on a couple of words - for emphasis - was acheived by copying the section of narration I wanted from the main audio, muting the main at that point, and pasting the sound into three separate additional audio tracks, slightly overlapped to create an echo effect. Could have taken the audio clip to modification software like NCH WavePad sound editor (free trial - good stuff) but I was too lazy!

Other PIPs used were 'Fire trail', to enhance the 'final' decision to dive, 'Flash of light' to add a bit of sparkle as he broke the surface, and the 'Rose move' to emphasize the affection (which was actually lacking in the clip).

The End was an afterthought because I'd just cut the clip out after finishing a larger video project, and it looked rather "blah" without an ending. Used 'Hot Summer' title and added 'perspective scroll' as a start effect to the text, with no ending effect, then simply skewed it using the green rotational handle on the text frame, to have the text scroll into the sun. A bit lame, but it only took a couple of minutes to add at the end.

That's the neat thing about Power Director 8 - it makes a lot of things easy, and there are plenty of help files and video demos like this and better (my first one) by a lot of great fellow PD users, if you get stuck.

THE SECRET'S OUT!

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:37:01 PST

It was one of the unpleasant secrets of the Second World War, this tragedy of August 27, 1944, which occurred just off the coast o France. Reportedly it was a beautiful sunny day with the sea a flat calm, as a flotilla of British Minesweepers, HMS Britomart, HMS Hussar, HMS Salamander, and HMS Jason, together with two trawlers, Colsay and the Lord Ashfield, had just completed their second sweep and were dealing with mechanical difficulties on one of the ships.

Some of the crew were relaxing on deck when suddenly, at 1:30, without warning, a group of aircraft came screaming out of the sun firing rockets, hitting HMS Britomart, and blowing up the boiler room of HMS Hussar. Both ships were ablaze and sinking when the aircraft regrouped and attacked again barely five minutes later

Stoker Petty Officer Leslie Fleetwood – my father - was on the Hussar He’d changed shifts with a close friend who wanted to be "off" that coming night. Having made the switch, my father was on deck and was blown overboard when the ship virtually exploded in the after section from a direct hit on the boiler room. That change of shift saved my father’s life. By the time it was all over, two ships were sunk, and two were crippled;,149 men were wounded, and 78 killed – 56 of them on my father’s ship alone. But that’s not the worst of it – you see, the terrible tragedy of all this, was that it was done by what we now call “friendly fire’; these British Navy ships were attacked and destroyed by British planes!

One of the ships, the Salamander had quickly displayed both a Union Jack and the White Ensign on it’s deck, while the Jason fired off recognition signals, in a desperate attempt to communicate to the aircraft that they were ‘friendlies’, but to no avail. An astonishing fact revealed at a Court of Enquiry convened two days after the tragedy, was that the RAF pilots, were indeed quickly convinced that they were attacking a friendly force by mistake, and had communicated this with a request to break of the action, twice, only to receive the order each time, to press home the attack. For further fascinating details check out a great website at:

http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/FriendlyFire/friendly_fire.htm

My father came to consciousness deep underwater, and attempted to kick to the surface, only to find that he couldn’t move his legs. He was saved by a thin cork lifebelt he wore around his waist, floating him to the surface. He discovered later that both legs had been smashed by the force of the explosion, he’d also lost part of his right arm, and a piece of shrapnel was lodged under his right eye from that day ‘til the end of his life many good years later, in 1986. He spent two years in hospital, recovering from those injuries, and I was already 4 by the time my father "came home from the war". Three senior Naval officers were later court martialled for dereliction of duty as the whole tragic tale came to light, of how a routine re-location message went astray, and was never forwarded to Naval Headquarters staff at the British Assault Area. The shocking truth was that it was the Navy which had ordered the attack on it’s own ships, believing them to be the enemy!

My father rarely spoke of the war, except to describe with pride, the ships on which he’d served after joining up at 15. I don't recall him ever speaking with anger about that "Friendly Fire" which ended a 19 year career of distinction n the Royal Navy, even though it nearly ended his life - but for a shift change, a thin cork lifebelt, and the hand of God…

It was Jesus who first said “No one shows greater love than when he lays down his life for his friends.” He was preparing His disciples for his own death – an atoning sacrifice He chose to make out of love, even for his enemies. When He rose again, conquering death, His claim to be God, come in the flesh, and His promise “I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live…’ were validated, and proclaimed.

Each year, I think of the many sacrifices made, and honour those who died. As I do, I can’t forget that, one day, in the summer of 1982, in the back kitchen of a little suburban house in England, one of those who had nearly lost his life, serving his country, came to understand that that sacrifice had been made on a Roman cross, out of love for him. In that moment, a 72 yr old Veteran finally surrendered his heart to the One who had willingly paid that price to reconcile him to God, and give him eternal life.

In tears of joy and release, that Veteran picked up the phone to tell his son. My phone rang at about 3.a.m. in Canada, and we cried and laughed together, as my father told me how he’d finally turned his life over to Jesus, acknowledging Him as His only Saviour and Lord.

My wife Lita, on her way back from visiting her family in Rome, had stopped in England to see Dad. With a simple pictorial display of the Gospel – with Italian text and Bible – she had introduced my father, to his Saviour, and his eternal destiny changed in that moment.

In four short years, he was gone – he had ‘graduated’, and now we know beyond any shadow of doubt, that we’ll meet him in Glory when our time of service here is finally done.

I'm Tel Mack,

Telling it like it is...

BARBARA PADILLA SKINNERED!

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:47:35 PDT

Well there you go folks, Kevin Skinner, Country Crooner, beats out Barbara Padilla, Opera singer extraodrinaire! Surprised? Well, that's what happens when you put your career in the hands of the American public!!! It has little to do with talent - let's face it, if you heard Kevin Skinner sing in the Quarter and Semi-finals, and especially again tonight as he had to handle a supporting vocal part with Thelma Houston, you would know this guy can't really sing!

Now I'm sure some folks will be up in arms at such a bold statement, but 'singing' a Las Vegas means far more than being able to carry a tune, or Karaoke while you strum a guitar. Look at the Sinatras, the Dions, the Chers of the Vegas world, and you'll understand "singer' as vocalist, performer, artist, entertainer and more; how many of those terms could you see becoming associated with Kevin? How many of those terms could you associate with Barbara?

I'm sure that a large percentage of the acts in this series have never even set foot in Vegas, let alone seen a show there. Can they really have much idea about what it really takes to be a succesful headliner? I seriously doubt it. To even begin to be a vocalist in a stage show anywhere, requires a number of things Kevin just doesn't have:
1. Confidence
2. Tonal quality
3. Vocal range
4. Volume, to name just a few

Contrast that with Barbara Padilla, who has pursued her dream with education, and dedication, and is blessed with not only an extraordinary and beautiful voice, rarely found without considerable vocal training, but also with an incredible vocal range and dynamic power. Throughout the Quarter and Semi-finals, she showed that sense of inner purpose and confidence in God that gave her remarkable poise and humility. Even Sharon Osbourne, perhaps not so much known for her spiritual perception as for her husband's talent, and their joint ability to use the "F' bomb, was moved to use the word 'worship' in describing how Padilla's performance had affected her.

Kevin has humility in spades of course, but it seems more like the "I've never won nuthin' done nuthin' bin nuthin'" kind of humility, and there-in friends, lies the rub! American youth in particular, loves the underdog/overcomer image. Let's face it, it's the essence of the Superhero phenomenon we're seeing in movies today. The weak, unassuming, 'nobody special' kinda guy or gal, who - given a bite from a spider, a blast of lightening, a rock from outer space, or several million "we're gonna make him win because nobody expects it' phone calls - is suddenly transformed into a Superhero, or, in this case, (for what I suspect will be a very short time), a Superstar.

Isn't it nice to see an out-of-work Chicken Catcher from Kentucky stand the world on it's ear, and walk off with a million bucks (before the tax man gets it) and a Headline Vegas Show? No, not when there was far better talent on the stage - and that's what it should have been about. No, not when the determinant of success is how many people are bored or daft enough to spend time and money to dial phone numbers over and over, or recruit their 'couldn't really care less, except it'll be a laugh if he wins' friends, to phone in too.

Is this just a bad case of sour grapes? Not at all! When all is said and done, none of the performers really caught my interest in what seems to me to be a cheap knock-off of American Idol, and not even half as involving. Not at all, when talent - real talent - is not allowed to compete against similar talent. Let's face it, America's Got Talent tries to compare apples to oranges, or rather, apples to Mack Trucks, and it's cashing in on all the folks who feel sidelined by the more stringent and specific requirements of American Idol.

AGT is certainly for folks who sing - good bad and indifferent, but it's also for those who juggle, jiggle, joke, jump rope, dance, drum, or drone, play with puppets, make magic shows, or just get off by goofing around! It's the poor man's Palladium, the venue that validates the performer in all of us. How many times did you hear the words, "This is what I've waited for all my life...."

There was the deftly-coiffured older gentleman who dug disco, but couldn't really do it, the frustrated pink (of course) sex kittens who couldn't wait to back out of the suitcase and shake their booty in your face, the german bondage mistress, the guy with his smart adopted dog, and there were the little kids.... oh how many little kids! Cute? Yes; sweet? Maybe; Vegas material? Only in their wildest dreams, and maybe not even then!

No, I have nothing invested in any of the multitude of performers (and I use the term euphemistically) who graced - and who didn't grace - the stage in this series. I'm simply somewhat saddened to see a very definite talent, like Padilla, loose out to a guy who isn't anywhere close to the same league, either as an artist, or as a performer. And I mean no disrespect to Kevin, I suspect he'd be the first to agree with me.

I hope Kevin get's some good financial advice, and makes the most of what will probably be a very short Las Vegas career. I hope he spends his million (before the tax man gets it) carefully and wisely. I don't wish him ill, I can even be happy for him, but I'm truly saddened to see Barbara Padilla loose out in what was not so much a talent contest in the end, as simply a desperate dose of digital dialing, and Super-hero fanaticism. Hopefully, if agents even bothered to watch this one, or if the Judges have any real pull in the entertainment business (and that's seriously debatable), Barbara will still have a chance to receive the recognition she really deserves. I wish her well, in her entertainment career, and in her health - I trust that tonight's travesty will set back neither her remission, nor her faith, and she will go on to greater things.

I'm Tel Mack,
Telling it like I see it.

Obama NOT Dissed by Russians

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:48:22 PDT

While - for some folks it seems - it would be nice to think that the American President was dissed by Russian politicos, in this much discussed video which has apparently gone viral,

the fact is that Obama was introducing Dmitry Medvedev to his (Obama’s) staff. At 0:10 of the tape, you can clearly see Rahm Emanuel standing in the group which is being pointed to by Obama. If you stop and start the video, you will see Obama’s mouth moving as he tells Medvedev who each person is; he tilts his head sideways, and indicates with his hand, which is ahead of the hands being outstretched. It’s quite clear, and if some of you “online observers” knew more, and were really in touch, you would have known that the folks Obama is pointing to, are his own staff, because you would have recognised their faces from the Media… but hey, what’s the truth when there’s garbage to throw?!!

Sad day when some Americans are inclined to rejoice at even the possibility that their own leader might be snubbed! Where’s your own patriotism you Obama 'haters'??? And, yes, I do know that not everyone finding this video interesting will fall into that category; many - like myself - were simply curious to see what seemed to be such an incredible event taking place. I guess that old warning is still worth heeding, "If something seems too good to be true, it probably is..."

Unfortunately, as I sought out further information, after first viewing the video, I saw many posters virtually jumping for joy at the prospect of the President being disrespected or "snubbed" as the video title implies.

You know, there was a time when the average American rallied behind the President, regardless of which party was in power… Remember how we reacted when Kruschev banged his shoe on the table at the UN? Remember how we united behind Kennedy when he laid down the law to the USSR in the Cuban Missile Crisis? Remember how you felt when you learned Regan had been shot - by an American?!!! No, of course some of you don't remember - you're much too young!

Perhaps that's really part of the problem; even the most misinformed, information-challenged teen can write something for all the world to see, with today's online technology - it doesn't have to be accurate, it doesn't even have to be true...

But it also seems there has been so much acrimonious exchange between Republicans and Democrats over the past 20 years, that some folks would even sell out their own country in order to see the opposite political party humiliated. You don't think so? Then give us your view, in an article. We'll publish it, provided you keep it clean, but in the meantime, may I suggest you read the article here entitled Patriotism or Persecution - in 2 parts, I think it’ll throw some light on how we arrived at this rather sad turn of events.

This is Tel Mack,
telling it as I see it.

Links for 2009-05-29 [del.icio.us]

Sat, 30 May 2009 00:00:00 PDT

A REPLY TO ALEC BALDWIN'S CONFUSED SUPPORT OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.
Check out Baldwin's article in time, then read this tell-it-like it-is critique. It's deserving of a "think and be succinct" award!

A REPLY TO ALEC BALDWIN'S CONFUSED SUPPORT OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:00:25 PDT

Here we go again, the misrepresentation of a position in order to validate another position. Don’t you get tired of it? Now, it’s true that anyone as a private citizen, has a right to an opinion – however wrongheaded in someone else’s estimation – and the right and freedom to express it in our burgeoning digital media. No problem there, I just have a problem with those who – by virtue of their Celebrity – attempt to recruit the public, for purposes beyond their area of knowledge or expertise. By recruiting, I mean “using” the media attention which celebrity status generates, to pontificate on everything from global warming to international affairs, not to mention the popular pastime of “Fundamentalist” bashing.

There are those who have never married, but have engaged in “other” relationships, presuming to tell married couples how to make it work; we have unmarried, childless stars presuming to speak to the issue of Parenting as if their very status somehow accords them special wisdom. And of course, we have increasing numbers of individuals who aren’t, attempting to be another Dr. Phil!!! Get a life people – or better yet, go get the appropriate degree, or how about even a modicum of experience in the area you’re blathering about?

What got me started on this? Well it was that Baldwin fellah, you know, not the Celebrity Apprentice one – the Christian guy – but the other one, the one who lately makes the Entertainment headline news. Well, let me say this for him, at least he starts off well in this opinion piece - he says, “I don’t know what the best perspective is on the gay marriage issue.”

Now it would have been fine if he’d quit right there, but he didn’t. A piece of advice Mr. B – if I may be so presumptuous – don’t say you don’t know, twice, in your first two sentences, and then carry on expressing an opinion as if you do!!! You were correct the first time! What’s that quotation…? “Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it.” Harsh, too harsh, but really, seriously, stick to acting Alec.

He goes on in his piece to say that one perspective keeps coming back at him – Fundamentalists, he says, believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose is for creating a family. Now, whether Alec obtained this “perspective” from his brother or not I don’t know, but he uses a strange turn of phrase, “keeps coming back at me…”. Sounds as if the Baldwin Bros. don’t agree on a few things – not surprisingly.

But he has me wondering now, who are these “Fundamentalists” to whom he refers? D’you think he means Muslims? Or could it be fundamentalist Jews? I wonder if Alec was referring to Christians, and then I wonder, does he know that Roman Catholics would have been a significant part of the opposition to homosexual marriage, and they would probably resent being pigeon-holed with Fundamentalists… whomever they might be.

Why doesn’t he just come out and say what he means? That’s the problem with those who spout rhetoric without really understanding the issues – they will often lack focus, and find themselves using terminology incorrectly; in doing so, of course, they end up casting aspersions in several directions at once, without even being aware that they’re off target. Who is your target in his piece, I wonder? Is it Californians who recently proclaimed their opposition to legalized homosexual marriage? Or is it one of those religious groups I just mentioned?

By the way Alec, what did you mean when you said that we live in a time when the idea of individual human rights has been relegated to a quaint afterthought? Excuse me, weren’t those Californians who expressed their individual will in the ballot on Proposition 8, exercising their human rights? And don’t individual rights also find expression in a collective will, if enough come together to form a majority? Isn’t that how democracy works Alec? Oh, sorry, I forgot, you also said that there’s been a ‘realignment of American Values resulting from the current brawl between Capitalism and Democracy’. Really…? I must say that rather trite turn of phrase has muddied the waters a little if you wanted to make a point about…. Well, just what did you want to make a point about? I’m going out on a limb here, and will try to address myself to the gist of Mr. Baldwin’s article.

Back in 2003, when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled homosexual couples had marriage rights equal to heterosexual couples, I’m sure there were folks who said, “This is democracy in action – this is the will of the people!” And we would have said, ‘yes indeed!’ Wasn’t it on this basis that California then decided to overturn the state’s ban on same sex marriage? Was that not democracy in action? And we would have said, ‘yes indeed!’ Oh, I’m sure some might have felt it was a minority group maximizing the benefits of publicity, and state legislators might have been panicking in that ‘glaring light’ and wanting to do the "Politically correct” thing. But the votes were in, and so – apparently – was homosexual marriage.

Fast forward to November 4 2008. In the much publicized debate over Proposition 8 in California, the various positions on the matter were aired ad nauseam. When the vote finally came, no-one could say that there had not been an opportunity for the democratic process to work. At $83.2 million dollars it became the most costly state ballot ever - a vote only exceeded in cost by the Presidential campaign itself! That would seem to be a pretty extensive, and expensive expression of the will of the people, wouldn’t you say? Thus, 52.24% of the voting public had democratically expressed their will, giving their individual support to the Proposition in sufficient numbers to form a new majority. Same-gender marriage was once again illegal – although those who had already become married in the intervening years, were still considered legitimate.

Apparently, some folks are not only furious, but attributing all kinds of unpleasant motives and agendas to those who simply exercised their democratic right to vote. So let me see if I understand the point Alec made here. When folks vote in the majority for something that you approve of, it’s democracy in action; it’s respect for the individual’s human rights, and others who disagree, should bow to the will of the people. But when the majority of folks decide to vote against something that you support, then human rights have been relegated to “a quaint afterthought”? Doesn’t that sound a bit like having your cake and eating it too? Isn’t that really a bit like the spoiled little kid saying, “It’s my ball, and if you don’t play the game my way, and let me win all the time, I’m going home, and taking my ball with me…”?

If logic doesn’t prevail here, then it’s probably pointless to mention – as Time does here, that opponents to homosexual equal marriage rights are presently winning the debate. That would seem to this writer, to be an expression of the will of the people, at present – whether or not one agrees with it. I would suggest that attacking what one presumes to be the basis for their decision, without an adequate understanding of it, and throwing up hands in despair over the fate of the country, would not the response of one who truly appreciates the right of others to hold differing opinions.

I find it interesting that Alec’s piece also asks, “Do you think that this society is prepared to outlaw homosexuality?” I would remind him that Homosexuality was outlawed in this country, as it still is in many others. Certainly there has been a time when this too was the will of the people in Western society. We would have to agree that human rights have progressed in many areas of our society - laws have been overturned; understanding of the issues has been broadened, and fundamental rights and freedoms have been ensconced and protected. This is how a democratic society evolves, and it is always a work in progress.

Always, there will be those who resist change, and always there will be those who would ride roughshod over the rights of those with whom they disagree. Name calling, pigeon-holing, and erroneous attribution contribute nothing to the process however.

In order to set the record straight, equality of rights is not synonymous with changing the literal and cultural meaning of a word. Particularly when that word carries centuries of not only tradition, but meaning. Despite many differing cultural approaches to the form of marriage, the word itself has – for millennia – described the concept of a unique and very specific union.

We do not speak of cows and bulls becoming married! We would not accept that a man might marry his dog, nor a woman enter into marriage with a cat. Throughout it’s history, dating back to the earliest written accounts, the word for marriage has represented the union of male and female human beings, in a specific contract of responsibilities and obligations, privileges and challenges. But it is even more than that.

In Hebrew sacred literature, as well as in the Christian Bible, that union has been understood to be sacred because of what it is said to represent; marriage is described as portraying the relationship of God to His people. The Apostle Paul presented the concept of marriage as a sacred union, representing Christ and the Christian Church – indeed, the New Testament refers to the Church as the Bride of Christ, and it paints a wonderful portrait of the intimacy God desires with His people, as well as the responsibilities and privileges entailed. While space does not permit the unwrapping and elaboration of that description here, Let it simply be said that a homosexual relationship, whatever else it may be, literally cannot fit that paradigm.

It’s also fair to say that in ancient civilizations, where homosexuality was perhaps more openly practiced, and accepted among certain segments of society, it was, none-the-less, not accepted nor described as “Marriage”. This is an important point, since the current debate often seems to be more about an insistence on changing the word “marriage’ to become inclusive of homosexual relationships than about equality of rights. Presumably this is to gain greater legitimacy for homosexuality itself. If this were not so - when equality of rights in terms of bank loans, home ownership, pension assignment, etc. is increasingly in effect – why is the cause still being pressed on the basis of the word ‘marriage’ itself?

I would hazard a guess that while many people do endorse equal rights and treatment under the law, they would – and do – balk at any legislation which would call a homosexual relationship “marriage”. And for many, their reasoning and resistance, stands on huge historical precedent, of which the above has been merely an outline. To boil the issue down into red-herring statements about ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘fear and hatred of homosexuals’ is unfortunately just the kind of rhetoric which generates more heat than light.

I'm Tel Mack - Telling it Like it Is

PRINCIPLES OF IDOLATRY - The American Idol Fan-tasy.

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:49:42 PDT

Well, were you surprised? The new American Idol Winner is Kris Allen! If you weren't prepared for this outcome, then perhaps you haven't been a longtime viewer of the program, or perchance you haven't parented teenagers yet! Let's just review the Principles of American Idolatry:

1. It's not completely about talent:
Clearly Adam Lambert was the most accomplished ARTIST of this group - in fact, it's not too much of a stretch to say the he was probably the most talented of all of the contestants who have ever set foot on the American Idol stage.

2. The voting public has a bias:
It happens every year; as the field of competitors becomes smaller, so the bias of the voting public becomes larger. And who is the typical Idol voter? Pre-teens? Teeners? or Tweens? Is it Youth? It's certainily not Me - th! (You won't find any Macho Men frantically fingering flippable phones will you? Surely not!) Could it be just Little Old Ladies?

3. It's all about the Female vote:
If you look at the age demographic for Idol, you can't miss the fact that it dominates the 18 to 49 age group, I'll give you one guess at the average age of that viewer-group's digitally diligent dialers...

Reality check, females voted 44% more text votes than males did, last year, and this year is not likely to be much different. You can bet it's not the upper end of this demographic who are voting either; you don't find 30 something women throwing money away by multiple voting on a TV show, and apparently, this female group vote for their Idol an average of 38 times each! Is it too much of a stretch to realise that we - the frustrated elder (wiser?) viewership - are subject to the voting whims of young girls in the full flush of infatuation? Isn't that why poor Allison - despite her considerable and really quite remarkable talent - didn't have a hope against "baby face" Kris, and (for now) androgynous Adam?

Consider this - Was the Judges' opportunity to overturn the vote, earlier in this year's contest, instituted because the voting public had been making such good, rational decisions in the past? Or was it introduced in order to try to compensate for the obvious bias of the main voting block? Simon virtually announced it as the Judges' opportunity to rectify the public's mistaken voting.

4. The process is compromised:
While making for good Television, one cannot avoid the suspicion that there is misguided voting aimed at upsetting the predictions of Judges who are, perhaps, thought to be of "the older generation". They are viewed as the quartet of "What Do They Know" -it-alls. It all comes down to reactionary, anti-the-obvious-choice, determined to show the ubiquitous "them" who's really in charge, teenage angst! It just oozes from the process doesn't it?

5. The final vote is not the last word:
The final vote, for all that - means much less than many of the earlier ones. Does anyone doubt that if we, the poor Plebes of Entertainment Land, can clearly see where the talent is, the Music Moguls can see it also? And what of that first placed contestant? If you were to ask the 2006 4th placed Doughtry, he would probably tell you that first place isn't what it's really about.

6. It's only Entertainment:
Despite the "Big Business" accusations, the fact is, we watch it - in the hundreds of millions - we watch it. In Nielsen ratings, Idol's Tuesday and Wednesday viwership is almost double that of it's nearest competitor - and for the most part we are entertained. Some of us are even sufficiently stirred and stimulated to write a blog about it, and all of it entertains.

7. True Talent survives the vote:
The truely talented - with the exposure obtained - will gain the attention of those who promote and manage the stars of tomorrow. For a season, both winners and talented also-rans will receive the rewards that popularity brings. Most will fade, as the limits of their individual talents are reached, and become apparent to a fickle public. A few - and I suspect that in the realm of Contemporary music, Adam Lambert IS one of the few - will go on to become, as one of the Judges put it, Iconic.

Idolatry, when you come right down to it, is not about Winners and Losers, is it? And it's not so much about the Object, as the Subject... idolatry says far more about us - the idolators - than it says about the object of our affections. Idolatry is, after all, really about worship - not true worship however; by definition, idolatry is about worshipping the wrong things. Now, doesn't that nicely describe the process which brought about yesterday's results on American Idol?

Tell me what you think - I'm Tel Mack,
Telling it Like I See it.

PLAYING THE RIVER CARD

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:52:57 PDT

So there it was, it was impossible to avoid the feeling that the fix was in from a long way back, but once the Boardroom began, it was obvious that Annie was going to be given, what’s the expression?... “the bum’s rush.” For those less familiar with the machinations of folks who deliver said “rush”, let me explain.

1. CLUE: Annie was renowned for her fund-raising capabilities, whereas Joan and Melissa’s efforts, even combined, had been abysmal – not to say embarrassing in terms of her not so forthcoming “Celebrity friends.” Instructions to the competitors: “We won’t just be judging this on fundraising capabilities alone, there will be other factors…” But it what proportion pray tell – wasn’t the whole purpose supposed to be charitable giving?

Duke out raised Rivers almost 3/1, but her astonishing $400+ thousand was given no more than one fifth of significance, compared equally with such incredibly valuable criteria as “how nice the decorations were”. Did you notice that Trump himself sneered at the so called Celebrities the Rivers team brought in, and even asked whether they had thought this was a good idea? Yet when awarding the win to Rivers, they claimed that she had brought in more Celebrities than Annie! In fact, the Rivers’ celebs were all faux – that’s “fake” to you dahling. Annie actually won that component hands down, she had genuine celebrities present (Tom Green and Dennis Rodman excluded…)

2. BIG CLUE: Giving the “fired” former team members the opportunity to express their opinions on who should win! Ridiculous, these were folks who had LOST Donald, since when do you let folks you’ve fired for failing in their tasks, judge the future of the one who has overcome every obstacle and succeeded to a greater extent than all of the rest put together??? The way that each one dutifully stepped into line behind Rivers, after paying Annie a “nice” little a compliment, was nothing short of underwhelming. If there wasn’t coaching and scripting for that segment I’d be willing to eat a Donald hair-burger!

3. REALLY BIG CLUE:

The hysterical shouting of the Rivers duo when Annie attempted to point out that the decorating crew had quit because of Rivers’ attitude. Did you see the Donald make any attempt to stop it? Instead, he allowed the Rivers mouths to continue running off epithet after epithet, until once again it resembled nothing so much as sewer effluent. Yet all the time, the evidence of the truthfulness of Annie’s assertion was right there, on Trump’s own video clips!!!

So what had he been looking at with the Producers? Perhaps that would go under the heading, “How can we turn such a “sow’s ear into a silk purse of a win?” In actual fact, Rivers personally, had so insulted and upset the contracted Decorating company – get this folks – employed by the Trump organisation - that the company quit on the show! They dumped the contract with Trump, and wouldn’t even allow cameras onsite. Rivers – with singular use of her mouth (and I’ve just realised that she reminds me of nothing so much as Heath Ledger’s Joker in the Dark Knight!) – accomplished what under any other circumstance, would have been called ‘critical damage’ to the Trump image and branding.

RIVERS’ CARDS - READ ‘EM AND WEEP ANNIE:
1. The loss of a Trump contractor.
2. Her abysmally poor financial outcome.
3. Her failure to incorporate the Charity into the Kodak brand
(Kodak had initially said they preferred Annie’s approach better)
4. Flubbing it with fake transvestite Celebrities - which Trump himself thought was tacky.

Yes, Rivers had in fact lost every significant criterion by which the project was to be evaluated, and then some, but Hey Nonnie No, it’s to Britain we go, and the would be Simon Cowell, whatsisname? Pierced Ears - I forget already - sums it all up in one sentence, “Well Mr. Trump, it’s obvious you’ve already decided” (oh Methinketh, how well he doth thpeak the truth?)

AND THE HOLE CARD?
I wasn’t there, so I couldn’t be sure, but I could’ve sworn I saw a large contingent of Noo Yawker Joanie cronies in her back pocket. These were the folks that – bold as he may be – even The Donald didn’t dare to risk offending. As I observed a couple of weeks ago, it was obvious that when push came to shove, Trump would allow old NY business connections, old friends, and perhaps not so friendly friends, to push him over the edge of reasonably entertaining, into downright ridiculous decisions.
You know, when all’s said and done, it’s not even that the troubles me so much, it’s that he sat there and let it happen, knowing that Annie had endured the screaming, demeaning, and the dirty politics scheming, without descending to their level, when he had it in his power to stop it. In fact Donald had it in his power to bring out a beautiful - well perhaps that's excessive - a nice ending. I suspect I'm not the only one who wishes he would have said, 'You know, a couple of seasons ago, I allowed a contestant to talk me out of doing something that I thought would've make a better ending. Tonight, I’m going to do what I think is in the interest of fair play and integrity. Despite everything that's been said, I'm going to say, "Joan, you’re hired, Annie, you’re hired!”'

Talk about melodrama – Donald, you should’ve had me as your consultant. This could have turned out so much better, for everyone concerned, even the reputation of your show! Frankly, as I’ve said before, I think the Rivers women have lost big-time in this – they’ve certainly lost the respect of several of their twenty or so fans... and now the show has lost out too. Cronyism and the old girl network won out over integrity. Integrity is something that can be difficult to regain… but then, the public has a notoriously short memory – look at Omarosa.
Telling it Like it Is – Tel Mack

PATRIOTISM OR PERSECUTION? Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:51:15 PDT

Part 2 - Political Correctness and Losing a Legacy.
So when did it all start going wrong? Let me ask you a question – when did PC become part of American life? Political Correctness began to seriously impact American political life around the time the Armed Forces adopted a policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, to deal with the subject of Homosexuality amongst the troops. It was introduced in 1993 and approved by then President Bill Clinton, after his unsuccessful bid to overthrow the Armed Forces’ longstanding ban, and allow Homosexuals to openly enlist and serve. His plunge into such controversial waters at the beginning of his Presidency was viewed by many as a major blunder, and the DADT policy was the eventual compromise he was forced to approve, to avoid dropping the “hot potato” completely. (Incidentally, President Obama has vowed to end this policy, but no-one around the White House is willing to say how, what, or when, he will try to do what Billy failed to do.)

Although some say the origins of Political Correctness are traceable to the musings of Mao in his little red book, there is a reference here to a Socialist think-tank in Germany in the 1930’s! How it migrated to the US makes interesting reading! The fact is, we see that what started out in the US as a cynical reference to the New Speak of the New Democratic politicos, eventually became adopted by the Left as a means of controlling public debate, and censuring criticism. What began as an orphan that neither party wanted, became the darling child of the Left during the reign of the supreme New Democrat, Bill Clinton (1993-2001). Let’s review a little recent history to trace the development of the bitterness and hostility so evident from the Left today, to the subtle influence of Political Correctness, as we take an overview of events from the Clinton years to today.

Whitewater:
Hillary’s dubious record as the first First Lady to ever testify before a Grand Jury in the Whitewater investigation, left some folks wondering, as the disappearance of crucial files was put down to “disorganisation following the move from Arkansas to the White House”. The investigation which ran from 1994 until 2000, eventually cost some 40 million dollars. It concluded with charges and a prison term for the Clinton’s friends and clients, the McDougal’s, while there was said to be “insufficient evidence” that the Clintons had engaged in any wrongdoing.

Travelgate:
The so-called Travelgate affair swirled around accusations that Hillary had been involved in the firing of staff from the White House Travel Office, in order to replace them with Clinton cronies from Arkansas. There was a public outcry when the news broke that long-time White House staff, some of whom had served at the pleasure of previous Presidents, were fired without warning, and without apparent cause.

An investigation into accusations levelled against the former Director of the Travel Office dropped all charges, and at the conclusion of an investigation into the whole affair, the Independent Counsel indicated that although there was substantial evidence that she had indeed been involved in the firings, it could not be proved that Hillary had deliberately lied about it, and once again, no charges were brought. The Independent Counsel concluded that Hillary’s statements concerning the affair were “factually false”, while he referred to the President’s sworn testimony concerning the actions of his wife as “factually inaccurate.” A nice piece of PC for you!

Filegate:
At the time that accusations concerning Bill’s sexual escapades began to titillate the American public, the Clinton White House was investigated for having illegally obtained and accessed as many as 900 FBI files without permission. The accusation that many of the files were those of former White House staff, of the previous Bush and Reagan administrations, and that Hillary had played a central role in orchestrating what became known as Filegate, was the cause of much consternation on the Right. Despite a failure to turn over files required by subpoena, the Clinton White House was eventually exonerated by the Special Counsel who said he found no credible evidence of wrongdoing in the affair. The outcome? Final costs for the Filegate lawsuit ran to around $90 million, and Craig Livingstone, Director of the White House office of Personnel Security, some might say a “sacrificial lamb”, took the fall, and resigned.

Vince Foster Suicide;
When White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster’s death came under scrutiny, the White House couldn’t put to rest the whispers that had swirled around the extensive investigation, despite a unanimous declaration by the Independent Counsel, the Department of Justice, and the FBI, that the death was indeed a suicide. The rumour mill was only cranked several notches higher, when Hillary was accused three years later – by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee – of instigating the removal of files pertinent to the Whitewater investigation on the night of Foster’s death.

Perhaps there was a hint of Nixon in the White House behaviour. Perhaps it was the sense that Bill determined policy more by popularity polls than by the astute political thinking for which he was renowned. Perhaps it had been his promise that the country was getting two Presidents for the price of one, as he attempted to promote his wife’s vision of a complete redesign of the Healthcare system. Whatever it was, there began to be a polarisation around the idea that Bill didn’t always mean what he said, or say what he meant. In fact there was increasingly the suggestion that Hillary herself wasn’t above an occasional “twisting “ of the facts. A New York Times article by William Safre on January 8th 1996, summarizing some of the above issues, commenced by referring to the First Lady as “a congenital liar.” You can peruse the article here

Understandably, friends and supporters of the Clintons were hard pressed to defend against, and downplay, the accusations which seemed to beset them. Many of their friends would go to the wall for them during the latter part of the Clinton years, and this is where Political Correctness - and the apparent inability of Clinton followers to call a lie, a lie - spawned the “hate wars” that increasingly rack American Politics today.

Perhaps the last straw for many, was the oft quoted bit of Bill-speak “I did not have sex with that woman..”

Despite all the twisting and turning, despite all of the faithful friends who swore up and down that this was merely Republican viciousness trying to besmirch the character of a wonderful man, the President of the United States was required to give evidence. It is impossible to listen to this red faced, sometimes argumentative, sometimes rather stumble-bum response to questioning, without sensing his apparently inate tendency to shade the truth.

Still arrogant, even in his final capitulation to the truth, Clinton has evident difficulty in being straightforward about the fact that he had indeed lied, and he shows himself still - even when cornered - to be a master of mis-direction. He seems to be accepting a degree of responsibility, while subtly associating himself with the "too many innocent people have been hurt" phrase. He identifies himself as the victim of the machinations of those who clearly don't have the best interests of the country at heart, and by the time he concludes, you can almost hear the applause! It's as if this is a State of the Union address, rather than a confession of lying under oath, and adultery. Roses by any other name...

Those who had stood by Clinton through the whole tawdry mess, had vehemently proclaimed that this was a man of integrity and honesty, a selfless leader, a wonderful, father, a happily married man. He had told them, they said - they had even asked him directly, so that no-one could accuse him, or them, of dodging the issue - and he had given them his word that he was innocent, and there was no truth to any of the assertions about his behaviour with Lewinsky.

How many good, well-meaning, trusting, hard-working and loyal supporters of the Clintons had taken that stand? How many Celebrities, often superficial and frivolous in their attitudes towards marriage, had said it was nobody’s business even if he had been unfaithful to his wife, but certainly it wasn’t true, so why so much fuss? These folks lined up with William Jefferson Clinton, and put their own reputations on the line with his. They had gambled on what they considered a certainty - and they lost!

Here is the crux of the matter; here the seeds of Political Correctness begin to bear their inevitable fruit. Where to turn? What to say? Crawl into what hole? The sad reality is, that when we are let down, or hurt by someone, against whom we have no recourse, we often vent our anger and frustration on those who had tried to warn us of the impending danger all along. It’s the “kill the messenger” syndrome! Thus began the battle…

Soon it was the Special Prosecutor who was being attacked, then it was the Republican party for daring to suggest Impeachment over such a trivial matter as sperm on a dress – when of course the matter was one of lying to a Federal Court. Then before long, it became a more focused anger, with it’s origins “forgotten” in the race for the White House once again, and the determination not to let those gloating, self-righteous, Republicans take the prize. Bill had not only cost them their self-respect, and abused their trust, but he had placed the very seat of power – after seeming solidly in their grasp – on very shaky ground.

When President George W. Bush won handily, it must have been like a whiplash to the Democrats. Not only did they loose it all, but they lost it to someone who was – in their eyes – the antipathy of Clinton. In reality, Bush was a plain spoken man with the demeanour of Homespun about him, whereas Clinton was polished, adept, slippery like Teflon, and evidently, an accomplished liar – look at the smart people he’d fooled into believing him. However, it simply was not ‘correct’ to say such things about their fallen idol, let alone, to admit to themselves that they had been strung along like a bunch of lovelorn teenagers, blind to the obvious faults of their sweetheart. They had been played for suckers by someone who – in reality – probably didn’t give a rat’s er…. tail for their discomfiture.

The pent up animosity which should rightly have landed on Clinton’s lap, following the apparently generous amounts of his DNA, instead, poured forth against the obvious “enemy”, George W Bush, and it hasn’t stopped since. Significant to me, is that while President Bush has successfully completed two terms, the main energy of the Democrats seems to have been spent disrupting whatever they could, and trying to “offset” Clinton’s failures and tarnished reputation, by digging up, or making up, dishonest, or shady, or disreputable failures in the Republican administration. For their part, the Republicans, in return, have understandably moved between defensive and offensive manoeuvres, as the fluctuating control of Congress and the Senate gave them opportunity.

It must have seemed as if even fate was against the New Dems, when 9 – 11 produced that initial outpouring of genuine American patriotism and national fervour. For a while it was politically incorrect to say anything against the President. You can see the frustration levels riding ever higher on the Left, as it appeared to them that with the beginning of the War on Terror, Bush was getting a break handed to him on a platter. It wouldn’t be long before that frustration boiled over, and once it did, even America herself would be trashed, if it could bring down the person who had now become the Anti-Clinton.

It began with digging up issues over the wire-tapping by the NSA. Even ‘tho Congress itself had approved the process, and recognised the necessity of counter-measures when dealing with enemies in a time of war. Political Correctness to the rescue this time… surely you’re not going to suggest that we “spy” on our own people? How dare you infringe on our “rights”? No use making the point that demonstrably, there were individuals - resident within our own country - taking full advantage of those “rights” to betray the country to her enemies outside; the very America which has given them a home and freedom from tyranny. Worse, there were those who were communicating and plotting even within the country, to bring it to it’s knees. When I was a lad that was treason, and we were more than willing to temporarily sacrifice personal freedoms in order to protect our country and way of life. The politically correct Left are now attempting to define such treasonous plotting, as “Free speech”, and the President who sought to prevent these treasonous acts, as the enemy of freedom.

Well, you know the rest – unless you’ve been hibernating in Antarctica. It was Gitmo, then it was Abu Ghraib, then it was WMDs or not, then it was War in Iraq, not enough forces, too many, the search for Sadaam, the search for Bin Ladin, and on and on. Increasingly there was biased reporting by the liberal media, promoting the idea that “We can’t win…”, “We’re going to fail…” and even, “We don’t deserve to succeed.” In fact, through it all, came the sense that rather than see this man Bush succeed in anything, some would rather see their own country fail - their own country discredited and despised. Indeed, it began to appear that there was an alternate-reality on which the vast majority of the media reported, and wherein dwelt most of the Left – both political and societal. Increasingly those who lived within the confines of that reality, nurtured the myth of winning by loosing, and the animosity became almost tangible.

And so, when the shoe flew past “that” man’s head, the denizens of Alter-USA let the world know the depth of that animosity with their cheers and jeers, and to those of us living outside their world, it seems akin to self-hatred.

It’s interesting – as an outsider – to see a whole segment of the political Left pursuing George W. with the single-minded obsession of those who had once trusted, and have now been cast aside; who have nothing left but a sour taste and a desire for what they might call vindication, which, one suspects, is the Politically Correct term for vengeance. For those disillusioned-but-unable-to-say-so, Clintonites and friends, it’s not really about integrity is it? It’s certainly not about making America great! No, it’s about rubbing someone’s nose in it ‘til it bleeds. The message doesn’t seem to have gotten through to them – the Anti-Clinton is gone… his term is over! Bill’s gone too! (well, perhaps gone isn’t quite the word yet).

He was the one who led you down the garden path. The desire to somehow expunge his failings by finding a "lowest common denominator" in Presidential behaviour, is a pointless waste of energy. There really are better things to do, and right now, your new President needs you!

One can only hope that President Obama will be able to re-direct, and re-energise that portion of the Left which has become so blinded by tears of frustration and disappointment. While I believe that he would seriously like to see the Clintonites, and far left extremists bury the hatchet with the Republicans, and get on with the business of State, I suspect he will have a difficult time preventing them from burying it in the skull of Lady Liberty in their zeal to make somebody – anybody – pay.
Telling it Like it Is – Tel Mack

TRY ME A RIVERS

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:00:55 PDT

Well, as the song goes, "The cat came back, I thought (s)he was a gonner but the cat came back 'cos (s)he wouldn't stay away!" The outcome this evening was predictable in view of Ms. Rivers return to the show this week - The Donald couldn't fire Annie, because she won again, and he couldn't fire Rivers after seeing her go completely overboard when her daughter was fired last week. She wouldn't just be calling Annie Duke "Nazi" and "Hitler" again, but would probably say it was a conspiracy on the scale of a holocaust. My apologies to our Jewish friends everywhere, but it was Rivers own hyperbole over the last two weeks that began this totally inappropriate line of invective - I'm only the commentator. I find her remarks as despicable as ever.

Poor Brandy, insulted to the last, not only by Rivers and her daughter last week, but by Pierce and Donald this week - and it was so unnecessary. BTW Donald's producers, it didn't even make good Television, it simply showed the shallowness of the process in this season's Celebrity Apprentice - wait! Only this season?

Of course Jesse couldn't continue, the guy has hardly said a word during the Boardroom sessions, and he is a sufficiently private man that he will not compromise his relationship with his wife, nor her friends, to provide entertainment for the masses - even under the guise of "Fundraising for Charity". Tsk, tsk, doesn't he know that that's how it's done in Hollywood? Surely you don't want to actually honour your marriage vows do you Jesse? Surely you don't think that "using" people's celebrity status and wealth is crass and exploitative.... I mean, everybody's doing it aren't they? Good for this self-described 'blue-collar' worker! Look to the regular folks to set the standard! You left with your head held high Jesse, I'll bet your wife (Sandra Bullock for the uninitiated) is proud of you. And you were right - even as Brandy was right; there really are things more important than TV ratings, money, and celebrity status, and honesty, respect, and integrity are among them. You showed us where those things live!

Well, it's almost anti-climactic isn't it? But I must admit I want to see Annie triumph - because she too has not compromised her standards, and hasn't descended to the level of some others we could name. Not only does she deserve the win, but Ms. Rivers deserves her own moment of 'come-uppance'. (Now there's an old turn of phrase for you Joan, and so much more tasteful than most of yours Dahling.) Indeed, it's possible that a loss would a good thing for Joan, if it only helps to put an end to what has become a sorry caricature of the 'aged Hollywood actress' who doesn't know that it's time to hang up her tights.

If anything good can possibly come out of this rather sorry escapade, perhaps sometime, somewhere, a Producer will think twice when that idea "Think it might be fun to try me a Rivers" comes to mind. Puhleeze..

Tel Mack - Telling it Like it Is.

PATRIOTISM OR PERSECUTION Part 1.

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:56:52 PDT

So why do so many Americans seem to hate their own country these days? Well, perhaps that's a bit strong, but to an outside observer like me, it certainly seems that some segments of the politicised public have such a strong resentment of those in the other political party, that it's akin to hate by any other name.

Let me give you some examples from the past year, and perhaps you'll begin to get a glimpse of what I mean.

When an Iraqi reporter threw his shoe at President Bush, some Americans rejoiced! I’ve read various bloggers who commented. “Good for him,” (referring to Muntadar al-Zeidi the offending shoe hucker) and, “I’m only sorry he ducked…” or “sorry it missed him.” Shoe throwing is a sign of contempt in Iraq. Yet Americans – both journalists and members of the public – were rejoicing that their own President was treated contemptuously by a foreign power; a foreign power which has seen thousands of Americans sacrifice their lives for it’s future… Where’s the outrage like that of the Kennedy era, when there was even a public outcry over Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN while angrily addressing issues between the USSR and the USA?

Democratic Rep. Pete Stark went so far as to suggest that President Bush found it amusing to see American forces have their “heads blown off” in Iraq. The remark was reportedly part of a tirade which the member launched in Congress, with apparent impunity at the time, in an attempt to over-ride the veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill. Even after his comments, it was not until there was a formal motion to censure him for such outrageous and insulting comments, that Stark eventually apologised to the President, the Armed Forces, and the House.

And it’s not all one sided - you probably heard Newt Gingritch suggesting that Barak Obama would be introducing the policies of his former Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, if he became President. He did this when he was well aware that Obama had not only distanced himself from Wright’s remarks, but had also distanced himself from the man as his Pastor – albeit seemingly reluctantly and belatedly. However, Obama himself was not without a sharp tongue, when he seemed to go beyond the bounds of fair political comment to attack Senator Sarah Palin, following her joke about a Pitbull.

You’ll remember the joke I’m sure – it was so self-deprecating, and so well received, that it seemed to be the point at which some members of the Media began to sit up and take notice. She asked if people knew the difference between a “Hockey mom” (a role she ascribed to herself), and a Pit-bull. The difference, she said after a suitable pause for effect, was “Lipstick!”

Whether it was the success of that joke, or the attention she garnered as a comfortable and fairly competent speaker, or the possibility that Palin was more of a threat than he had initially been led to believe, Obama didn’t take long to put aside his usual equanimity, and descend to the trough of what is becoming increasingly dirty political innuendo. His audience clearly assumed he was referring to her quote later, when he made a comment in Lebanon, Virginia, although he made no direct reference to Palin; "You can put lipstick on a pig," he said, "… it's still a pig."

We could go on and on, but in the interests of trying to be balanced, what about the overt racism of Congressman Lynn Westmoreland’s remark? The Republican Rep. from Georgia was asked to compare Michelle Obama with Sarah Palin, and commented, “Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama… Senator Obama… (did it kill him to acknowledge him as a Senator?) they’re a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they’re uppity.” When a clarification of his use of the word “uppity” was requested, Westmoreland, with understated Southern class (?) simply said, “Uppity, yeah.” Oh my, could it be that the poor Georgia Congressman was feeling threatened? Perhaps he was thinking that the South needs to rise again to deal with these uppity black folk who presume to run for the highest honour in the land when they’re barely off the plantation! I mean, not only was his grammar atrocious, and the implied slight very obvious, but he had the unmitigated gall to suggest that despite being born and raised in the South himself, he’d never even heard the word “uppity” used in a racially derogatory sense! Good grief Congressman, where y’all bin…

Yes, it’s true, political life is rarely free of rhetoric, and frequently fouled with insults, imprecations, and implications. But when a country’s populace becomes so partisan that it would rather see opposing political leaders imprisoned, despised, or degraded, than give credit for anything they may have accomplished, it’s a sad, sad, day. Sincerely hoping for harm to come to public figures, or for the country itself to be defeated, and describing feelings for both government and country as “hatred”, is increasingly the expression of many Americans. The pride seems to have gone; the sometimes annoying, effusive demonstrations of American patriotism seem to have disappeared – only to be replaced by this air of depression, rancour, and animosity frequently bordering on anarchical. Let me share with you my sense of what may have been the turning point in American socio-political history, that began this downward spiral in public affection, and perhaps you’ll be surprised to find that I’m not going to refer to 9-11.

Links for 2009-05-12 [del.icio.us]

Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 PDT

My Town Square
Social comment Blog - Current events, entertainment, politics. Smart, witty, cynical, satirical. Just new but worth following! Great polls - need more.

WHY BE A FOLLOWER AND JOINER?

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Sat, 02 May 2009 02:21:31 PDT

Do you want to join those who regularly read My Town Square? Just go click on the Followers' gizmo. Don't worry, you're not buying anything, and you're not paying for anything! When you click it and give us a bit of info, you become one of our fans - you can even post a pic or icon of yourself if you'd like. We encourage you to do that - it's great to see your smiling faces and know that you're a supporter. Being a Blog author can take a lot of time, and while we start off writing and hoping readers and comments will come - it's hard to keep enthused if it seems nobody's bothering to read what we've put out there. Of course, if you're as opinionated as I am, it's a little easier! But your posts and comments and becoming part of this community are the only ways we know anyone's interested.

So, through the Follow list, visitors can see who our fans are, and maybe decide to become a Follower themselves. It's also your way to let others know that you're one of those Town Square commentators on life - make a post and send an Email to your friends inviting them to visit the site and see what you've had to say.

We encourage commentators and readers to stay updated with our posts, because this helps us to develop a public fan base for My Town Square. In time that'll boost us higher in SEO - on the search pages - and we'll reach more people. You see, when you have an opinion, you really don't want to keep it to yourself... do you?
Just Telling it Like it is - Tel Mack

HOW HOLLYWOOD WENT TO THE DOGS

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:59:59 PDT

There’s no question that folks love dogs. Some like to keep them for sport, some for work, some for gambling, some for pets, and some even love ‘em for food – but we won’t talk about that today! One look at popular culture in our own country, shows that we North Americans have a love affair with Deputy Dawg, and all of his honchos. Stories like Old Yeller and Where the Red Fern Grows are considered not only good for soaking several hankies, or a mini-pack of tissues, or your sleeve – depending on your generation – but also as timeless classics. Only in Hollywood however, do dogs manage to rise to the heights (or descend to the depths – depending on your point of view) of celebrity, nay even Stardom. .

Rin Tin Tin

Rin Tin Tin was Hollywood’s first recognizable canine star. That grand but gentle German Shepherd was featured in 26 films for Warner Brothers Pictures, and is generally credited with having saved that studio from bankruptcy during the silent film era. The original Rin Tin Tin died in 1932 at the tender age of 91 in doggie years; that’s 13 of ours, but his bloodline and his fan club still exist to this very day. There are even rumors that he’s not really dead, and he’s often glimpsed leaving buildings… oops, that was another star – long may they both reign in the hearts and minds of their faithful fans!

Lassie

Ask anybody over 40 to name a famous dog, and you’ll probably get the name Lassie every time. Lassie - star of several television series, multiple movies, and the subject of countless books, is probably the most recognizable canine in TV and movie history. Interestingly, all of the dogs playing the benevolent bitch (female dog folks, that’s all) over the years have been male! How’s that for confusing genders? The premier pooch portraying Lassie was actually named Lad, and you can bet he was one confused laddie, by the time he’d finished playing Lassie! Despite dubious genders, Lad / Lassie successfully starred in the now famous television series as well as several movies, the most memorable being the original Lassie Come Home.

Benji

In the 1970’s a would-be filmmaker named Joe Camp started pitching (excuse the pun – camp, pitching… tents? Never mind) trying to sell a “dog movie” around Hollywood. Wherever he went he was told that the film would never work. Undeterred, he decided to produce the film independently. Once it wrapped, Joe had new troubles, because no distribution company would release the film. After “camping out” (oh no – he did it again…) on the cold hard steps of numerous distributors, Joe decided to do it himself, and his gamble paid off; Benji, starring a lovable mixed breed mutt from an animal shelter, became a huge hit! Over the years there have been five Benji movies, not to mention television programs and specials, comics, (you had to go and mention them didn’t you – ) and a ton of Benji merchandise. You see, there were beaucoup bucks in Benji bon-bons, that’s why Hollywood went to the dogs!
Tel Mack - Telling it Like It Is

CELEBRITY APPRENTICE - RIVERS OF INVECTIVE.

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:59:12 PDT

You know, apart from American Idol, I'm not much into these Reality Competitions - can't forget that there's always a guy behind the lens shooting the scene I'm looking at, and wondering when we'll be really watching shows like that portrayed in the latest version of that old classic "Death Race". (Have you seen it? Talk about stunt driving and action!) It's just that my prurient interests have been just about stretched to their limit. Of course, as our uninvited life-coaches always tell us, "Ya don't hafta watch it then do ya..."

Anyway, I've been catching Celebrity Apprentice on and off, and last week was downright narsty! So what about the Rivers damsels? Joanie-babe, aka Nana Naughty-word, seems to have totally flipped this time. I mean, for a Jewish woman to be likening a poker playing female contestant to none other than "der Führer" is hyperbole in the extreme, not to mention insulting bordering on slanderous. And why you ask? What was it that provoked Madam Molinsky? (Yep, that used to be her name before she "made it.") What could have driven this former icon of purity and virtue to such excesses? Her daughter lost... Yes dahling, poor 'parently paranoid Melissa lost the hand to her poker-playing team mate Annie Duke!

On Tuesday 28th April, Jeffrey Pollack, Commissioner of the World Series of Poker, was reported by AP writer Oscar Garcia in SFGate to have said that he thinks Annie Duke's presence on the show will be good for the game, despite the repeated insults thrown at her - and at Poker playing as a profession - by Joan Rivers. I can only agree... Annie's behaviour by contrast, was nothing short of classy!

When I saw how Melissa (the Rivers off-spring) began to spew forth such venom because she let her paranoid suspicions get the better of her, I was just waiting for the apparently co-dependant mother to respond as she watched from outside the Boardroom. Nothing prepared me however, for the vitriolic verbiage that these two women heaped on other contestants, producers and associates together, as they both stormed off the set swearing (yes indeedie) that they would never return.

Somehow, I can't help feeling that Melissa lost more than the game last Sunday - indeed I suspect that both she, and her mother, lost the respect of thousands of former fans, not to mention the opportunity to ever be invited for a free buffet in Vegas again!
Tel Mack - Telling it like it is.....

MAN BUILDS ARK

noreply@blogger.com (Tel Mack) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:58:02 PDT

You may have heard of it, a few bloggers have picked it up and the BBC has an article on their site, but we're taking you to the site of the builder! Click on this hyperlink http://www.arkvannoach.com/ and we'll send you directly to the original site of the builder - its simply called Ark Van Noach. For those of you who don't read De Dutch, click on the leftside menu bar labelled FOTOBOEK, and a slide show will show up (pun intended). You can select how many pics you want it to display, and so on. Go there and see a phenomenal work of dedication and faith. Whatever you might think about the origins of Noah's Ark, you can't help but admire this guy's passion and dedication. When you've seen it, vote your opinion.