Sports films usually do a poor job portraying the atheletic aspect of sports.  I took a class recently in which we were asked to view a number of sports films.  My opinion has not changed in that I still think there are few good ones.  I do have a theory why this is true.  Sports are only the vehicle used to transport an idea.  Often these ideas are very worthy, and I always wonder why no one takes the time and care to get the athletics correct.  I watched the "Jackie Robinson Story" yesterday, and while the athletics weren't too bad (Jackie played himself), the movie seemed patronizing.  It seemed the movie told a needed-telling story, but treated the audience as low intelligence racists that must be spoon fed with simplistic examples.  Maybe this was all too typical of hollywood at that time, but it is also typical of many liberals today.  They treat others as incapable of rational thought and feel only they have answers.  They insist upon burdening the country with their mandates without logical reasoning or meaningful debate and in fact will shout down arrogantly and angerly with ill-conceived rhetoric anyone that dares have a dissenting opinion.  This arrogance carries over to film when attention to detail is neglected (if the film makers don't know a subject, the audience won't,. either).  And if they do a poor job with what I know, maybe they are also doing a poor job with what I don't know.  Is it possible that some liberals have more prejudicies than the masses they are attempting to enlighten?   

To paraphrase the old saying about government, “language is a terrible form of communication, but it is the best we have”. Because we have different ways of learning and thinking, what seems simple and straightforward to one, can be incomprehensible to another. While most think “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”, means that outlaws will always be able to get guns, I used to interpret it as meaning gun bans would force those law abiding citizens who own guns to become law breakers in order to preserve their second amendment rights.

Some people have a charisma that allows them to say and/or do almost anything and still be perceived positively. Others, (I am a member of this set), have the opposite effect. There was a period of my life that I was doing things for a certain person out of love. I was stunned that everything I had done with the purest of motives was misconstrued to have had the vilest of intents. I eventually realized that I had no control over how my actions would be interpreted, particularly if was in this person's best interest to believe the worst.

A teacher once explained that the difference in constructive and destructive criticism is whether or not one has a viable solution to the problem. My criticisms are rarely about things to which there is no solution, but usually have a simple solution, and I am frustrated and dumbfounded that a solution hasn't already been implemented. Do not assume I am being negative, but understand that I think things could be better.

    I would like to thank not only our local station that prides itself on playing "classic Rock", but all those other stations that seem to be using the same service.  I have a collection of vinyl that covers much of the period that I was a teenager and a few years beyond.  The songs I don't have seem to be the ones these stations play over and over and over...     The reason I did not buy these records is I did not like them when they were first out (and I still don't like them).  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (and mine is that many songs they play are not classic,and some are not even rock), but wouldn't it be nice if this service would play a variety to introduce more songs and artists to those who did not grow up in this period, and stop playing the same tired songs day after day?  My theory is that those who choose this very limited selection 1) probably did not grow up during the hayday of rock and 2) are not very knowledgeable about music. 

    The D. J. Alan Freed began using the term "rock and roll" just previous to my birth and since he died in 1965, he ceases to be an authority for whether or not any song done after 1965 is considered rock and roll.  Those of us that grew up listening to this music would probably agree that the term "rock " is used a bit too freely today.   For those younger, check out this music - if you truly like rock, you will be amazed at the explosion of groups and great songs from this period (the fifties and particularly the sixties).  As a teenager (admittedly just after Freed's death), it seemed new songs were coming out each day and rock was getting progressively "heavier".  I thought Ian Anderson's expressive breathiness as he played the flute in Jethro Tull was just a further step in the evolution of rock and roll.  But then alas for me, somehow simplistic and often out of tune songs seem to start a backlash against the complexity I loved in rock.  This is the time I feel that rock, if not died, then at least partially retired.  In the suceeding decades, songs and groups I liked were (and are) few and far between, whether or not one considers them rock. 

     I used to say that rock was concerned with the beat and the notes; the words did not matter - if you were more concerned with the words, get a poetry book.  I guess I still feel this way for the most part.  Christiam music is an exception in that the music can take me to one level (physical and/or mental?) , but the words add so much more (making it a spiritual experience).  I presently listen to Rhapsody and such non-rock artists as Al Jolson, Jim Nabors, and Dean Martin.  Part of me feels a need to apologize and explain that it is the beauty of their interpretation of their songs I enjoy, but I still listen to Led Zepplin, Meatloaf, and Lynard Skynard.  And oh, still my favorite is the Temptations' "I Can't Get Next to You", no it's Vanilla Fudge's version of "You Keep Me Hangin" On", final vote - Joe Cocker's interpretation of "The Letter".  

    I was watching a history channel program on Benjamin Franklin when the historian was asked where politically Franklin would be to if he were alive today.  He  gleefully announced that he would be in a blue state, a member of the party of tolerance.  I personally think Franklin would abhor both parties.  I am reminded of a life long politician that was asked to describe his political philosophy.  He said he entered Congress as a liberal and years later departed as a conservative even though he had not changed his views.  Lincoln once said he would free all or none of the slaves if either would save the Union (The Emancipation Proclomation freed only those in states at war with the north).  Similar are many of our politicians today who choose positions calculated only on attaining or retaining office (i.e. increasing their net worth and/or power).  

    While many conservatives are deserving of the label "compassionless", it is not fair to label them that solely because they disagree with a government program designed to achieve a commendable goal.  Neither is it fair to label all liberals "patronizing", but many liberals in their arrogance assume others are incapable of making coherent decisions and must be spoon fed by government, and in this same manner they are also intolerant of others' ideas and programs designed to solve the same problem(s).  We the public would be better served if our politicians from both sides of the political spectrum would learn to listen to and debate logically others' thoughts and ideas.  

    I have heard it said that one has no heart if one is not a liberal when young, and no brain if not a conservative when old.  I adhere to this in that I still care, but I do not believe we can look to government to solve the myriad problems we face.  The answer lies with the individual.  Each of us must be more caring, more commpassionate, and yes, more loving to all others.