To view real estate listings in the Georgia area, follow the link below.
When an Actor Turns into a PoliticianPolitician
When an actor turns into a politician, should we trust them? Let me clarify ... should we trust them any less or any more because we inherently do not trust our politicians. Alec Baldwin, Barbara Streisand, and Jane Fonda have taken stands on the outskirts of the political arena shouting their opinions, while other actors have actively sought political careers. When Ronald Reagan was elected president, the question was asked, "Can we trust him? How will we know if he is acting, or sincere?" I watched the movie Bonzo the Chimp. Please, we will know!
Ronald Reagan was a very personable and likeable man, the contributing factor in his popularity, but he wasn't a good actor. If Streisand or Fonda entered the political arena we might have a little difficulty knowing the act from the real thing; however, with Streisand her popularity wouldn't hinge on personality. Fonda, on the other hand, probably would not accept the election outcome saying, "I feel that contest of personality and talent are immoral, and unjust!" However, that would not be much of a problem because no one would vote for her.
Sony Bono was taken at face value -- bless his little heart -- because he wasn't much of an actor either. I do not remember the gentlemen's name offhand, but he was the aircraft carrier commander in the movie Red October, and with his acting ability I would be confused between an act and reality. I was rather sorry to see him go into politics because I have enjoyed him in more than one movie. Radar O'Reilly of Mash fame went into politics, and his ability to perform character roles has been missed. Oh yes, there was that Love Boat fellow, is he still a senator?
We all know that senators are actors, but are they politicians? Should they be in Hollywood, or on the stage in New York instead of wasting their talents in Washington DC? Should future presidents list the New York School of Acting on their resumes? Can you not imagine Bill Clinton in the role of Romeo. He begins his balcony speech, "Where far out there Hillary ... Monica ..." turning to a stage hand he asks, "Who is this again?"
Richard Nixon as Cireno Deburgirac. " ...." 18-minutes later, "Say you love me Roxanne ... you women are all alike ... out to get me!" With this he stomps off stage, throwing his fake nose ... well, maybe not that but he's ticked.
John F. Kennedy as Hud ... "Come here. You look mighta pertty in that dress." Okay, it's corny but how does one do a Boston accent combined with illiteracy?
I don't think that Gerald Ford would be able to carry off the character role of a professional golfer; however, he is the essence of the tanned surfer-dude dad. He could do Gidget's father fairly well as long as they didn't give him any inanimate objects to hold.
George Bush, Sr,, would of course, be barred from eating before coming to the movie set. I would love to see him play the role of the mayor in Spin City -- a sitcom. And Lyndon B. Johnson could have played the role that Rock Hudson made famous in Giant, of course, he was understandably qualified.
Eisenhower and Truman would have done well as the gentlemen of the manor in any old black and white movie of the South. Therefore, I ask again, why not let the actors have the senate and the senators take acting lessons, so that when they are ready and able to run for the presidency they will have the full requirements.
Can someone answer this? Please?
We have the movie Rough Riders and I have problems equating the loud-mouthed re-creation of Theodore Roosevelt with the black and white stills that I had seen as a younger person. Was Tom Berenger hamming it up, or was Teddy Roosevelt truly that obnoxious?
Tattooing: An Art of Choice
I got my first tattoo when I was 23. My younger brother had gotten one when he was about 16, and I had wanted one ever since. So, for Christmas 1993, we went to a tattoo artist he knew and trusted, and I got my first tattoo: a little mouse on my ankle. I have always had a fear of rodents--they are just so nasty-looking--but Pandy was just so cute. . .he had the most mischievous look on his face, like he had been into all sorts of things no one knew about. . .reminded me of someone I knew. ; )
I was ready for my second by my 24th birthday, only four months after Pandy. I got what I had actually wanted the first time: a heart wrapped in barbed wire with blood dripping. . .the symbolism of love struggling with reality was an instant draw, and I had initially chosen it for my first tattooing experience. But, I had wanted my first to be on my ankle, and the detail required in the barbs just wouldn't be justified on such a small palette--my ankles must have been much smaller then! So, Pandy came first, and the heart went on my shoulder as a birthday gift--yes, from my brother. Actually, when I went the first time, the artist told me, "Don't worry, you'll get it next time." I insisted I wasn't getting any others, but he just nodded and said, "Yeah, you will. We all do." Well, he was right--tattooing is addictive.
My third is a band of barbed wire around my left ankle. My brother had had a different artist, "Tater," put the band around his right arm, and I just fell in love with it immediately. I got it, the same one, just a week or two later, if I recall correctly. It's kinda cool, having the same tattoo as my brother--something of a redneck family crest, I suppose.
I'll be getting more in the future, I assure you. Currently, I want a vine with sunflowers snaking up the top of my foot, wrapping around the barbed wire band around my ankle. For those of you who are thinking about a first tattoo, let me give you some pointers, based on personal experience--mine, my brother's, friends', and customers'.
-
* Make a firm, thought-out decision. I knew a girl in college who had a dolphin tattooed above her ankle. A couple of months later, she started a series of laser sessions to remove it--a very costly and painful process, from what I understand. She was afraid her parents were going to see it, so she removed it. This is the type of thing that should be considered before having a permanent image placed on your body. If you aren't sure, try henna--you'll get an idea of what it is like having an image on your body 24/7, and it only lasts a few weeks.
-
* Check out your artist. Look at his books, of course, but you really should see some of his actual work and talk with the people who have his work on their bodies. Talk to people whose tattoos you like, as well as people whose work you don't like. Ask who/where the tattoo came from, and keep a running list of do's and don'ts--and don't get the names mixed up! Of course, when talking to someone whose work you do not like, be nice--no need to tell them that's why you are asking!
-
* Screw freehand. Look, it's great that some artists have so much talent they can tattoo freehand, but that is just not the way to go for a first tattoo. Generally, when you are getting your first, you know exactly how you want it to be placed, what size it should be, what angle it should be turned, etc. Newbies are usually more detail-oriented than a veteran, so to speak. Personally, I still want to know exactly what I am getting before that ink hits my skin, not just a general idea of how it should turn out. So, insist on a stencil. That way, you'll see exactly where the finished product will be, how big it is being drawn, etc. And, if you don't like it? Then your artist can wipe it away and make changes again and again until you do like it--not an option with freehand. Some artists take offense to the request for stencils, but, like I said, screw them. It is your body and your money. If the artist gives you grief, find another.
-
* Check out the studio and procedures. Most artists don't mind people sitting in on a session if their customers don't mind, so go in and watch a time or two. Does he use new needles with every person? Does he open them in front of the customer? He should. Does he pour the ink from the main bottle into disposable ink wells? Hey, you don't double-dip chips at a party, do you? Why? No one wants someone else's slobber, and, in the case of tattooing, you certainly do not want someone else's blood. Therefore, disposable inkwells are a must. Is there an autoclave for sterilizing other instruments? Is it being used? Does the artist have a liquid sanitizer on hand? Does he wash up before and after a session? Is the overall atmosphere clean? The days of the dirty underground shop are over--if it isn't clean, leave.
-
* * Yes, it will hurt. Personally, I get a high off of it. It's a cool kind of pain. . .erotic, in fact. Endorphins are kicking in, you're getting a natural kind of rush, and it can be an incredible experience. Of course, like anything, it is what you make of it. Some people are just too weak for tattooing in my opinion--if you're gonna whine about it, you shouldn't be having it done. But, if you do, know that some places on the body are more sensitive than others, and may hurt more--places that are less fleshy and more taut; places where there is little more than skin and bone; or places that are just naturally sensitive, like the inside of your upper arm. Of course, it's all relative--if you aren't a wuss about it, you may actually enjoy it, as I do. Take it from someone who has had 3 tattoos, 2 broken arms, a dislocated wrist, and numerous bikini waxes: tattoos hurt, but are hardly excruciating. Enjoy it.
-
* * Stay away from names. I know you love that band/girl/guy today, but in ten years, you may not be quite so enamored with Korn/Dora Lee/Alfred. Then what? Laser (expensive), cover-up (usually tacky and obvious) or just live with it (most often)--take your pick.
-
* * Start small and work up. When getting a first tattoo, don't pick something that is going to take hours of sittings to complete. Start small. Tattoos can be added to more easily than they can be removed. Be sensible, use common sense, and start small.
-
* * Choose your area wisely. You must always remember that these things are permanent--you cannot take them on and off like your watch or a pair of earrings. If you have a snake drawn on your neck, it is going to be there every time you go out the door, regardless of whether it is a party night, a business day, or a church morning. If you are not comfortable with people seeing your tattoo wherever you are, don't get it in an area where you have no choice but to show it. If you get it at all, get it somewhere it can easily be hidden under clothing.
-
* * Follow after-care instructions to the letter. You will likely need a "touch-up" session, regardless, but following your artist's professional instructions makes a huge difference in how much touch-up is required. Clean and care as instructed, don't pick at it when it starts to scab and scale (you had a needle punching into your skin, making you bleed--yes, you are going to scab and scale), and stay out of the sun.
-
* * Don't be intimidated by the prejudices of others. Tattooing is more accepted these days, but the naysayers are always around. From the "you-are-defiling-God's-temple" crowd to the "tattoos=trailer trash" crowd, there will always be someone out there who will tell you what a mistake you are making. Listen to your own heart, your own mind, and decide what you want. If you want it, get it, if you don't, then don't--just don't do either because you let someone intimidate you. It's your body and it's your life, so live it as you wish.
So, there you have it--a few pointers to get you started in your research. Tattooing can be a wonderful experience, or it can be a nightmare--most of that is up to you.
By the way, if you have a tattooing experience, new or old, that you would like to share, we'd love to hear about it here at SIF! Email your story, along with an image of the tattoo, to me, Mechele, here at SIF, and maybe we'll use it in a spotlight sometime!
LIFE MUST GO ON
The World Trade Center. The Twin Towers. 9-ll. Ground Zero. All are phrases we have heard repeatedly for nine months. Over and over and over. . .and over. We have heard about the victims, the survivors, the families, the friends, the firefighters, the employers, the children, the mayors, and the effects of the attack on the city of New York, on the United States, and on the world at large. Now, we have a new conflict: what to do with the site now that Ground Zero is no more.
This doesn’t seem like an overly-difficult decision, really. The technical details, yes, maybe, but not the general decision. After all, this is valuable commercial property in the middle of NYC, and it should be treated as such. Yes, include a memorial to the event, to the victims lost, to the mark on our nation, but build again. Move forward. Go on living.
It is time for this nation to move forward. It is time for the friends and families of the victims of this tragedy to move on with their lives. Grieve, certainly--losing a friend, a partner, a spouse, a child, none of these things can be wiped away from a human heart within the course of a lifetime, much less within nine months. However, it must be acknowledged that these are simply not the only people ever to lose loved ones. These are not even the only people ever to lose loved ones through terrorism at the World Trade Center--6 people were killed and more than 1000 injured at the previous WTC bombing, back in 1993.
I listened to a woman on the news defend the demand that the site never be built on again. She pointed out that she and many other people like her do not have a body to grieve. They do not have a gravesite to visit. They were not given the opportunity to bury their loved ones, to have a funeral, to memorialize them. This site, she stressed, was all they had to come and visit and, therefore, should never be used again for any purpose other than a memorial. Compelling, certainly, and I do sympathize with her and others, but their situation is hardly unique.
Many, many, many people in this nation have lost loved ones and not had a body to mourn. Soldiers have been lost at war, so many in foreign countries, never to be recovered; people have been murdered, their bodies never to be found; accidents have happened, burying workers within coal mines and construction sites for all eternity; and many, so many, have simply been lost, disappearing without a trace, leaving their friends and family to wonder what even happened to their loved ones--at least these people do know what happened to their husbands, wives, sons, daughters, partners, mothers, fathers, and friends. At least there is some basis for closure.
I do sympathize with the people who lost loved ones in the event. I have lost loved ones--over the course of a lifetime, we all will. But, we have to realize that time stops for none of us, and this is a good thing. We bounce back, we move forward, and we honor those that died with what we make of our lives after their deaths. We do not honor anyone by stopping our lives and the lives of future generations so that we can live for those in the past. This area in NYC once employed thousands of people, and it can once again. No, it won’t be the same, it will not be the once-glorious Twin Towers, but people will once again be building their lives in this area. A memorial can--and should--be incorporated into the area, both for the victims of the first WTC bombing and for those taken with the destruction of the Towers. But, the greatest honor we can give to those lost is to prove that we have not been defeated by moving forward.
Closing up shop is not the answer.
Children Running Wild
Many people are becoming angry with the kidnapping of young children. Why? It’s simple, there are too many perverts and too little supervision of young children.
Children are an eighteen-year obligation, and if you don’t want the obligation, then don’t have a child. Children need to be supervised. A child of five can’t be trusted to make their own decisions, nor should they be left in the care of adults unable to see to their needs. I’ve heard many women complain that child rearing is extremely difficult and that they need a break from it on occasion. “Yes," children do take a lot of time and effort and they can be quite annoying. A child of two will ask constantly about things around them, and not understand most of the answers they are given. A child of five or six will want their independence, but they need supervised independence. A child of seven, well, let’s face it, the child is neither happy nor is he/she finding the world a nice place in which to live, but they still need supervision.
It’s easy to say these things, and far harder to do them. I’m not an expert in child psychology, I’m a mom, a mother to seven children, and an aunt to four more who were left in my charge while their parents worked. If you can do the math, the total comes to 11-children that were very dependent upon me for their every need. They needed a lot, and I gave from my heart to insure that each child was safe, happy, and adequately taken care of. There were 8-years of my life that I had no idea what was on television, no idea what the fashion of that time was, nor did I care--the kids needed me.
There were times when my hands pruned from doing dishes, because no household had the necessary amount of plates, glasses, or cups to survive the daily event of feeding such a large group of children. Bath water, clothing and the occasional bout of sickness made the task that much harder, but we survived. We survived because the kids were always supervised. There was no time at which I did not know where one of them was, no time in which they wandered away. My sisters and my husband counted on my abilities to take care of them, and it was not a task that I took lightly. They were children and I was the only adult who could care for them. Parents need to know that the caregiver is able to be a 24/7 kind of person.
There are cases out there today where the caretakers have done nothing wrong, but there are also cases where carelessness does factor into a child's disappearance." . It doesn’t make the perpetuator of the crime less liable, but it does bring into consideration the fact that a child who’s well-watched can’t be taken.
One such scenario that comes to mind is that of the children in the toy isle at local super markets. Who’s watching them, and why do I have children coming to me, asking, “Have you seen my mommy?”
When are children old enough to be left unattended? There is no such age. Children need constant supervision. Anyone, everyone is a suspect when a child disappears. A child, by definition, is someone who needs a parent or caretaker to be present. Many is the time that we have asked, “Where is your mommy?” Only to hear, “She’s at work.” A child should not be left to tend it's needs, because you have a job.
I’m very happy to say that I was a Domestic Engineer. I’m glad that my children weren’t left to the fate of anyone less capable of caring for their needs. I’m extremely happy to say that my children weren’t lost because we needed to keep up with the Jones. I didn’t, nor did my husband, need to have more at the risk or sacrifice, of a young life. We aren’t wealthy, and probably never will have that particular stigma, but I have seven-healthy children and there is no greater gift, or wealth, in the world.
I’m the grandmother of 4-albeit one is much harrier than the other three-and they aren’t allowed to play in the front yard, or the back, for fear that there is something there that will hurt them. I have to go outside with them, because I’m the one that knows, that is relied upon to give them proper care. There are no super moms, just women who prefer to see their children grow up, prefer to ignore the sickness in society so that a child can become an adult. Parenthood is much longer than the eighteen years, it’s a forever life that anyone knows can bring heartache and despair.
We don't have to be great parents, but we do have to be parents. And though it's not a popular idea, we need to be overprotective, because there is just too much out there that can hurt a child.
What is WRONG with the music industry??????
Sales have been dropping like rocks this year. . .for the past several months, actually. . .and everyone is wondering why. Is it the economy? Is it cd burning? Is it the war? Are people still too scared of terrorist threats to leave their houses? Are they afraid they might open a cd laced with anthrax? Well, personally, I don’t think it is any of these things, not at the core. Yes, the economy had a bit to do with it, and the beginning of the year is usually pretty slow for most retailers--who has money to spend in January? But, no, that’s not why the music industry is taking such a hit.
Lean closer, guys, and I’ll let you in on a little secret: the music coming out these days just plain sucks and no one wants to buy it.
There, I said it.
I have a music store myself, and I have seen a dramatic change in my business over the past several months. Oh, I still have customers. . .they come in the store, look around, browse around with a bored look on their face. . .they chat, pick up stuff, set it back down, ask about new releases, wonder about their favorite artists. . .oh, yeah, the customers are here, for sure, just as they have always been but now, instead of happily ripping off plastic wrapping on the way to their cars, dropping it in the parking lot for me to pick up later, they are leaving empty handed. Why? It’s simple, and they have voiced it over and over and over: there is nothing new. Even the new stuff is old, before you’ve even opened it.
"Alternative rock" is a joke these days--straight up pop, for the most part, and you have to be really slick to know which band is which when you hear them on the radio. 3 Doors Down? Nickelback? Default? Creed? Puddle of Mudd? Staind? Who knows. . .and who cares? Honestly, I have never heard a whinier genre in my life--everything they put out seems to revolve around how pitiful they were/are/will be in the future. Honestly--get over it and write something that rocks.
Pop. Boybands and Britney Spears stripping at award shows--I just don’t think anything needs to be added beyond the name "O-Town."
And what about rap? Well, let me tell you, I am no prude--I have no problem with people using profanity and such for true expression. And, yes, there was a time when I think the rap industry truly could make a case for hard-core rap being an outlet of expression for their artists, people who had lived hard-core and, therefore, had something to say that really could only be expressed through violent imaging and vulgar profanities. But now? Now rap is all about the almighty dollar, and their words are just for shock. Sometimes it seems the race is on to see who can put the word ‘fuck’ into their lyrics most often, throwing it in where it has no sensible meaning. Rap has, without a doubt, sold out its roots for cars, shoes, cash, and egos. Write something cool, something meaningful, something people actually want to jam to instead of stuff that 13-year-olds buy so they can giggle and feel rebellious because they used the word ‘fuck.’
Country? Well, overall, country is having something of a revival, I must say. The "O Brother Where Art Thou?" soundtrack kicks bluegrass ass, and people have scooped it up by the truckload; Nickel Creek, a young, very talented bluegrass group has been hot since the day they hit the airwaves; Toby Keith has an album out right now, "Pull My Chain," that should only be printed in gold; Garth Brooks overcame his "Chris Gaines" catastrophe with a killer collection, "Scarecrow;" Montgomery Gentry simply cannot be stopped; Gary Allan cannot put out a bad song; Lee Ann Womack crossed over to mainstream with a vengeance with "I Hope You Dance;" Jo Dee Messina has finally stepped out of friend Tim McGraw’s shadow and is standing on her own two feet with "Burn;" Reba McEntire is tearin’ it up on Friday nights with her new television show on the WB; Tim McGraw--well, what can one say about a man like Tim McGraw that isn’t already said when he wiggles around on stage in those jeans and tight T-shirts; Kenny Chesney is just fantastic, and is on his way to the big leagues, I believe, with his upcoming collection, due out in April/May; Travis Tritt, once thought to be gone the way of cows put out to pasture, showed his old record label and other non-believers that he is not an artist to be ignored; and Alan Jackson comforted the world with his tribute to America and in honor of those killed in the World Trade Center attack with "Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning?" Yes, all in all, I think country music has overcome its woes and is in a good groove at the moment, so I will give them credit where credit is due: they are lookin’ good.
Music is cyclic, and we have to take the good with the bad, I know. But, so far, I am just wondering what in the world music store owners will put on their "classic" shelves twenty years from now. At this point, there will be nothing from the late 90’s/early 2000’s. Music of today sucks, just as it did when Nirvana came along in 1991 and broke open the doors for alternative rock with their classic, "Nevermind." Now, alternative has gone pop, rap has gone crap, and there doesn’t seem to be anyone sitting on the horizon to change the situation. Of course, these things happen when you least expect them, so maybe our shining hope is just around the corner. I certainly hope so. At any rate, THAT is what is wrong with the music industry today: the music sucks.
It really is that simple.
©Mechele R. Dillard
Amendment II: A
well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.
And, thus, with the
stroke of a pen, our Founding Fathers guaranteed their
fledgling country, and its citizens, the right to bear arms.
Or, did they?
Tho’ clear in its intent, the liberal extremists of our Great Nation twist and tinker their way through this amendment, just as they do with most of the laws, rules, and regulations our foundation was built upon, and arrive at the conclusion that guns are at the heart of America’s problems. And, as they have so many times, the Founding Fathers are rolling in their respective graves.
The United States has a problem. We have become a nation of violence. But, unlike many countries, fighting in the streets for freedom or justice or God Himself, we are fighting because we can. We have nothing better to do with our time. Our children have grown tired of Friday nights at the movies and dinner in front of the television. Parents have lost sight of their responsibilities, expecting the government or the baby-sitter or the schools--somebody, anybody--to raise their children, citing their need to work and build a career above all else. Yes, they had the children, but, after all, these are the seeds of our collective future--why shouldn’t the government, baby-sitter, schools, etc. help raise them? It’s in everyone’s best interest, isn’t it?
But, I digress. Guns are the problem with the ever-growing violence in the United States.
God? Where is God? WHO is God? In this free society we’ve built over the decades, the mere mention of God sets people quaking in their boots--pray at a football game? Not unless you want a lawsuit on your hands. Acknowledge a colleague’s sneeze with "God Bless You?" So, you want to be cited for religious intolerance on your work record, do you? And, the Pledge of Allegiance, the one we all grew up reciting every morning before homeroom commenced? Nope--it declares us to be a "nation under God." Nope--can’t have that.
But, no, I digress. Guns are the problem with the ever-growing violence in the United States.
Children kill children in the streets. Parents are afraid of their own children. Teachers are not safe in their own classrooms. Citizens lobby fo the legalization of drugs, and blame the government for not rehabilitating the junkies, who are, obviously, victims of their own genetic weaknesses. Kids build bombs in their parents’ garage, and blow up their school just to see if they can. Babies are killed every single day, with the consent of our own U.S. Supreme Court, without being given a chance to experience life beyond the womb, because they are an inconvenience for their careless would-be parents.
But, again, I digress. Guns are the problem with the ever growing violence in the United States.
Government programs hand out condoms to our children, promoting "safe sex" over abstinence. Parents are required to give their consent for a thirteen-year-old to have her blood-pressure checked at a doctor’s office, but she can freely arrange to have an abortion if her school-issued condom fails her. A person can be dismissed from work, refused acknowledgment by legal authorities, or dragged through the street and hanged, all with the consent of mainstream society, simply because he loves someone of his own gender. The color of a person’s skin can still provoke an onslaught of hurtful name-calling, dismissals, or even physical abuse.
Yet again, I digress. Guns are the problem with the ever-growing violence in the United States.
Our older citizens are living in shacks and are unable to afford food or medicine. Our glorious Veterans are living on the streets. Teachers are taking second jobs at Wal-Mart to make ends meet, while football players and actresses whine about multi-million dollar contracts. Children are used as pawns in election campaigns. Marriage has been disrespected to the point that the rountine small talk inquiry is, "So, is this your first marriage?"
But, alas, once again, I digress. Guns are the problem with the ever-growing violence in the United States.
It’s true, handguns can be used as an expression of violence. And, it’s true, people are shot every single day in the United States, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. But, my reader, handguns are inanimate objects. Handguns are not violent. People are violent. Eliminating the rights that were given to each and every law-abiding adult citizen by our Founding Fathers is a dangerous precedent, and will only bring a fool’s security, never touching the actual problem. When we begin eliminating the rights that this Great Nation was founded upon, the solid foundation on which we have stood for so many years begins to weaken, shifting perilously, until, eventually, it collapses in the wind, leaving us nothing to stand upon as we condescendingly lecture the world around us.
|