An Unexpected Journey

Am I the only one who does not remember a Brown wizard in the Hobbit? As soon as I got back from finally seeing An Unexpected Journey last night I immediately started skimming my Authorized edition of The Hobbit or There and Back Again from 1966 to see what I had forgotten and what was new in the film adaption. Well, what I found so far is that the dialogue from the unexpected party is almost exactly as Tolkien had written, right down to where Gandalf reminds Bilbo of his Great Great Granduncle Bullroarer Took, who knocked off the head of the Goblin King and inventing the game of golf in the process when the decapitated head rolled down a rabbit hole. The only difference being that Gandalf actually spoke the words in the film while narration was sufficient for the book.

I have been a Tolkien fan for most of my life, having first read The Hobbit when I was 7 or 8 and The Lord of the Rings not long after that. Peter Jackson first came to my attention with The Frighteners in 1996 and even if the plot was straightforward that film had many of the features which Jackson used to such great effect in LOTR. Dramatic landscape shots, engaging dialogue by well-developed characters, impeccable casting, amazing special effects that embrace the cutting edge of technology, and stunning photography that more than most films makes you feel like you are there. Tolkien's style combines complex literary devices with light-hearted irreverence that creates a depth to his stories that are still enjoyable for young readers. I gain a new appreciation for him and learn something new about Middle Earth every time I read the stories. With this hagiography out of the way, hopefully my thoughts will not come off as harsh.

Somehow I was not trembling in anticipation for An Unexpected Journey's release. In a way, I worried there was nowhere to go but down. In another vein, Jackson's LOTR is now mainstream, old-hat, making hordes of "instant Tolkien experts" in the same way WWII is the length and breadth of history for so many Americans. That is another blog entirely, sorry folks but no amount of movie-going can make you an expert. But I may as well repeatedly hit myself in the head with a hammer for all the good that message will have. I freely and completely admit that Jackson's film is about as close to a masterpiece as I can competently judge, I am very happy to have gone to see it. However, I am glad the disclaimer ran at the end of the film "based on J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit or There and Back Again."

It Comes Down to Apple Pie

I'm sure that the debate about the mother in law, daughter in law relationships will go on forever and ever. I'm sure that there are psychological explanations and excuses, and  reasons and whatever applies to individuals.  For me, it comes down to apple pie.  I'll get to that a little later..

Now, I have nothing against my mother in law.  In fact I'm really kind of a fan of hers.  She's a great person, and might even be a saint as far as I'm concerned.  She is crafty, likes to bake, is involved in social causes through her church and most importantly  She raised four boys, one of whom is my husband (obviously.)  Now, these four guys are great also, but they do have a tendency toward being headstrong, sometimes temper-mental, and always practical jokers.  They like to laugh, its great, but I can only imagine them as boys.  I have two boys and my patience is tried daily.  She had four, and they are all still alive and thriving! This is where the sainthood comes in.  I hope that my boys will still love me as much as these four guys love their mom. 

So, she's my mother in law, and she's great and I love her.  She's not the monster in law that some of my girlfriends have.  I really have won the lottery with her, couldn't ask for better in laws.  But I hate being compared to her.  I'm not sure why, she is after all a great person, but I'm not her.  Being the individual that I am I think I don't really want to be compared to anyone, but it really irks me when I get compared to my mother in law.  I finally figured out why,  

Its all about the apple pie.

I'm a cook, I was a professional cook for many years, and its a safe bet that I won my husband over with my cooking. It was my home made spaghetti that did it.  Then there were my cakes, my home baked breads, my cookies and any number of other things that came out of my kitchen.   He was hooked.  In fact when I met my then future mother in law, she was impressed that her son put on some weight, because he had always been too thin and I was taking good care of him. It seamed that I had gotten he approval when none of my hubbies previously girlfriends had.  It seamed that I had won.

We got married not long after that, basking in the newlywed bliss.  Then came my apple pie.  I make a mean apple pie, blue ribbon award winning apple pie according to many of my friends and family members. A pie that was entirely my own creation, my own recipe that took a little bit of trial and error to master, but the final product was heaven in your mouth apple pie.  I made this apple pie for my husband, and you know what response I got from him? He said, "its good, but its not my moms apple pie" :-/  If I had made it for him before we were married and gotten that response, I might not have married him.  I mean, this apple pie is my baby, I labored over it, I perfected it, I created it and I'm not sure there was anything in the world that I had been more proud of than that recipe.  People have begged me for my recipe for crying out loud! But it wasn't his mothers apple pie.  All of a sudden, I didn't measure up and the comparisons began.

This past year I have heard a few more that are absolutely ridiculous. I let our 6 year old son get a mow-hawk, and we sprayed it green for his first day of school.  My husband says. "I cant believe you let him get a mow-hawk" I ask, "why not?" hubby responds, "my mom never let me get a mow-hawk,"My response to that "in what way am I like your mother?!" spiraled into ridiculousness really quick. There is nothing wrong with my mother in law, like I said before, she nearly a saint and its okay to be like her.  It's just that damn apple pie!  I should have looked at it like the compliment that it was.  It turns out it was meant as more of a "hey, I think its great that you let our son express himself in such a way that my mother never allowed me too." if that's what would have been said, it never would have spiraled out of control, but alas, my old inadequacies came popping forward because of that damn apple pie that I immediately had to "defend" myself from something that need not be defended.

Just tonight there was another instance, which has prompted this post.  My brother in law was over for dinner and we were digging into the Christmas cookies that I had baked yesterday and my husband was reminiscing about how mom never let them get into the cookies before Christmas.. Again I said "in what way am I like your mom?!" again, a misinterpretation of my husbands meaning, and I'm pretty sure I offended my brother in law, because he asked me "why is that a bad thing" to which I had to respond, "it's not, I love your mom, I think she's great I just don't like being compared to anyone" but it was after reflecting for an hour that I realized that it all goes back to that stupid pie comment from 7ish years ago. 

I think I have solved the mother-in-law conundrum... Guys, girls, if you are lucky enough to be married to an awesome cook, please don't ever compare recipes. I don't care if your mother makes the "best damn apple pie"! Your spouse now make the best damn apple pie! Lie if you have to to save yourself the hassle, learn from my husbands mistake and NEVER EVER EVER compare your mothers cooking to your spouses. I have a feeling that this is how the "in-law" myth began hundreds of years ago..... And probably the original mother-in-law was as awesome as mine is, and was just another victim of the miss-communicated kitchen...

It's not the guns, it's the attitude

Do you know why we don't have "gun control" in this country? I'll give you a hint, it is not all the money and influence of the NRA, it's not the endless tautological drivel of millions of gun-suckling man-children eternally whining about their rights, it is not even the bumper sticker no facts wishful thinking of their talking points. It is simply this, gun violence is confined to marginal elements of society. The average of 10,000 gun homicides every year in America does not touch the elite but mainly culls the superfluous population. Do you want to know when we will have "gun control" i.e. soldiers and police kicking down doors to confiscate weapons? The moment a wall street executive is gunned down. Not a moment before.

I'll say one thing, if you gun maniacs shoot half as badly as many of you drive the only place I want you to put your gun is up your ass. Here's my beef, I was a tanker so unless you were in the artillery I have fired bigger and badder weapons than you have. I don't own any weapons, do you know why? Because I am not constantly living in fear of needing one and self-pitying enough to buy the paranoia and demagoguery constantly shouted about "the only constitutional right that matters." And having sent 120mm rounds down range, there is nothing on the civilian market that could impress me. I have also seen what these weapons can do.

It is the attitude that makes the prospect of drinking my own urine preferable to discussing the proper role of firearm ownership in the United States with one of these lunatics. I'd love to provide the dozens of examples of the whining, entitled, superficial nonsense that washes to the surface like scum on Lake Michigan every time some damaged individual uses a legally bought assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol to blow away a bunch of people minding their own business, but chances are if you're reading this you've probably seen them. Besides I'm in a ranting mood and I don't want to stop and "document my sources" as though the grade-school yammering about "guns not killing people, people killing people" deserves that title. I have honestly never seen grown men degenerate into pre-school tantrum-throwing self-pity machines faster than these guys do every time a completely preventable tragedy sacrifices the lives of innocents, as though it has anything to do with them or their precious toys.

Isn't this the same crowd that says government can't do anything right? Yet you cower in fear of the great and powerful Obama? It is an exercise in projection unlike anything seen in this country since Lincoln was accused of wanting to force white girls to marry the slaves you just knew, just knew he was going to free. I see President Obama as more James Buchanan than Lincoln, but it does not change the fact that it took the largest, most vile act of treason by pampered white planters to stir the great emancipator into the most melancholy crusade for human rights. President Obama had the opportunity to be the anti-bush you gun sucklers imagined him to be, wrenching back the country from the free-market, neo-imperialist suicide course it was on when he took office but he could barely muster the will say "please health insurance companies, don't let so many people suffer and die," hoisting millions of new customers their way in the process. Not lifting a finger to prosecute the war crimes of bushco, he continues most of shrub's autocratic policies. This is the guy who keeps you awake at night for fear of "taking your guns?" Give me a break.

At most, at most what will happen is another Brady bill in all of it's watered down, technocratic glory. "Yes, you can have the 3 inch barrel but not the 4 inch barrel, yes you can have a 10 round magazine but not the 15." And of course everybody's bad ass phallic symbols will be grandfathered in. So yes, "buy 'em and bury 'em." Funny how in a depressed economy that lacks demand from tapped out, indebted consumers somehow firearm sales keep soaring. So yes, please, go into hock to buy that sweet bushmaster or desert eagle, I'm sure it will do you so much good when the drones blow up your house in the great UN takeover that is "just over the horizon."

Kicking the poor

If only the truth made a dent.

Myth: ”People on welfare are lazy and sit at home collecting it while the rest of us work to support them.”
Fact: The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF). TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full time.
Now I can’t speak to the issue of whether welfare recipients want to work, but the law gives them no choice; within two years they have to find work or face losing benefits. This fact about welfare was what Mitt Romney brought up during the campaign when he claimed that President Obama was going to get rid of the work requirements for welfare, which was a lie. Several governors, including the Republican governors of Utah and Nevada, requested a waiver of the work requirement for various reasons.
Myth: ”I see these guys all the time, hanging out and drinking, and doing drugs, collecting welfare instead of working.”
Fact: The able bodied single male with no dependent children who collects welfare in the United States pretty much does not exist, since the primary goal of most welfare programs is to provide temporary support for children and families. Single males can receive certain benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if they are disabled.
Myth: “Most welfare recipients are minorities.”
Fact: While I am not sure why this should even be a concern, other than because of racism, percentage-wise roughly the same number of whites are on welfare as blacks. (38.8% of welfare recipients are white, 39.8% are black) The percentages of Hispanics and Asians on welfare are much lower (15.7% Hispanic, 2.4% Asian. So much for the right wing claim that “illegals” come to the U.S. and collect welfare benefits.)
 

 Then there is the enduring myth of red state "rugged individualism" and "self-reliance." No matter how many times this one gets blown out of the water, somehow it never dies. The fact of the matter is that the more enlightened blue states have been carrying the deadbeat red staters for a long time.

The United States just had an election, if anything was decided it should be that the hateful and often blatantly racist "conservatives" do not speak for the country. For all the money behind rmoney and his band of thieves, there simply are not enough Americans willing to spit on the poor, crush foreigners, and rip the Union apart. Only repeated rebukes and defeats will ever bring them to heel enough to stop causing so much trouble. I can only hope that the future has an America made of people who may disagree but can do it without threatening violence and secession any time they do not get their way. The alternative is just too dire to contemplate.

The last gasp of voter suppression

Gerrymandering: The Final Frontier of a dying ideology.

As American as apple pie, slavery, and Indian Removal. Partisan control of redrawing the district lines after each census is the ugly stepchild of direct representation. Redistricting was included in the constitution after the bitter imperial experience left the colonies only "virtually" represented in the British Parliament that made decisions affecting the empire. The idea was also to avoid the "rotten borough" syndrome in England where members of parliament were often elected by a handful of voters and had much greater power than MPs of urban areas. So, our system solved some old problems but created a new one. Leaving the power to reapportion seats in the House of Representatives in the hands of partisan legislators has led to the saying that "politicians choose their voters, rather than voters choosing their leaders."



Ironically, it was first used (and named) by rising politicians of the Democratic-Republican party like Elbridge Gerry to marginalize the aristocratic Federalists. This famous picture proports to show DR-favored areas as a salamander enveloping the older Federalist strongholds of Massachusetts. This was a driver in the Hartford Convention that destroyed the first two party system in America.

Today, according to ThinkProgress, gerrymandering has managed to preserve the bankrupt ideology of "conservatism" in spite of the will of the people. Federalism, the delegation of governmental powers to units smaller than the sovereign state, has meant in practice that oftentimes when Progressive leaders take over in Washington, regressive leaders sneak into state capitols during midterm elections. I will not try and make the case that Democratic politicians do not take advantage when in power to gerrymander, but republicans go out of their way to be obnoxious about it. For example, after the 2000 census Texas finished redistricting in a way that conformed to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but somehow state republicans managed to redo it after taking control in the 2002 midterms to dilute Democratic areas and capture 5 extra seats. The districts they drew made the salamander above look quaint by comparison.

The other option for apportioning legislative seats is to do it proportionally, but of course that would probably require voting a slate of party candidates instead of individuals and so often you hear voters say they vote the man (or woman) and not the party.

But, according to Mother Jones:

Most Americans voted for Democratic representation in the House. The votes are still being counted, but as of now it looks as if Democrats have a slight edge in the popular vote for House seats, 49 percent-48.2 percent, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. Still, as the Post's Aaron Blake notes, the 233-195 seat majority the GOP will likely end up with represents the GOP's "second-biggest House majority in 60 years and their third-biggest since the Great Depression."So how did Republicans keep their House majority despite more Americans voting for the other party—something that has only happened three times in the last hundred years, according to political analyst Richard Winger? Because they drew the lines. (Emphasis mine)
 

So, if your ideas suck and the majority knows having you in power will harm them; just abuse your power and take over anyway. Who's gonna stop you? The United States is stuck, again, with a group of lunatics running the asylum.

Where are my royalties?

Hallyon forwarded this picture to me, apparently I am in the hooch business.

I'll be expecting a check any day now fellas. I am available for endorsements lol.

Funny thing is though, I'm actually not much of a drinker. A beer now and then, on the rare occasions I imbibe the hard stuff it is usually bourbon. But I guess beggars can't be choosers.

It is almost like a cyber-thriller

Chalk it up under "I want to believe."



The cyber-"hackivist" group Anonymous claimed to have prevented carl rove (deliberate) from stealing votes in Ohio and thus the election. This has to be one of those "known unknowns" that ronald dumsfeld used to talk about when he allowed chaos to erupt all over Iraq. Thankfully, and despite the utter lack of interest by official Democratic Party organs, we the people may have been spared another campaign of known unknowns in Iran by Anonymous.



Of course, we will probably never know and the professional boo-hooers at Salon say the story does not add up.

Now, as an historian, someone trained to use evidence but also to read between the lines to discover hidden meanings, I am not sure how much weight to assign to Anonymous' claims. As a Liberal and someone who values sometimes abstract concepts like the rule of law and public responsibility, even civic virtue, I want to believe that there is now a force that can obstruct the children of darkness like rove & co. from stealing. First they stole elections, then they stole from the public treasury, they stole the lives of our soldiers, and finally they stole the future from the American people with all of their crimes.

Reading between the lines, has anyone ever seen rove go off-script the way he did after fox called Ohio for the president?

It is clear that turd blossom is an evil man, a pure sociopath for whom power is it's own end and the harm he causes to others is completely meaningless to him. In other words the perfect operator to destroy the delicate republican institutions of America and bring dictatorship. But are we the people simply sheep to be shorn and slaughtered as these wolves see fit? For years it has been apparent that the republican party, with its brownshirted teabaggers and conscienceless billionaire backers, are the snake in the fable about the old woman and the snake. "They" are going to do these evil things, grab power for it's own sake. However, after taking power they use it to cynically destroy everything good and extract all the wealth possible. Even the idea that a mysterious force is standing up for the hapless children of light nourishes the hope that all is not lost. So I am willing to take the chance in believing that Anonymous is really out there, watching.