Total Pageviews

Saturday, January 25, 2014

I Know What You're Up To!

I awoke this morning completely unsure of anything. This, in and of itself, is not remarkable, but this time my suspicions centered on this brave new 1984 world and how it’s very possibly playing me for the fool I like to think I’m not, (but very well may be, if I’m correct, which actually, if I am, really makes me less of a fool, so you can see why I’m feeling a bit unsure).

You see, I’ve been starting to wonder if the “old friends” I’ve been in contact with through this so-called boon to man—(and gabby women especially)—called Facebook are really who they’re purporting to be. It suddenly occurred to me—in the shower, in fact, as these things are wont to do—that the people who have claimed their connections to me—and have been gingerly sending their familiar communications into my message hole—may very well not be the people they say they are.

How the hell am I supposed to know for sure?! Certainly, it appears they are who they seem to be, but my god, how hard could it be to pull the wool over my bluescreen star-struck eyes?! (Or how easy?!!)

Think about this. I haven’t seen—or certainly heard from—most of these people for a pure 20-year spell, and now suddenly I’m supposed to believe they’re back in my life, like swallows returned from Capistrano, or the shingles?

Let’s work this through logically. How hard would it be for someone to impersonate someone else on computer—someone I haven’t had contact with in all that time? They put up a tiny picture of some vague resemblance, post a reference to my hometown or school or favorite comic character, and they’re in! Some of these people look incredibly different, at least as far as I can best judge from the 4-millimeter-by-6-millimeter pictures. In some cases, it very well could be the same person’s picture, but that doesn’t mean it’s the same person. I mean I can only imagine how many photos have been taken of me when I was unaware—on the street, in the shower …

The more I’ve thought about it, my understandable suspicions have been enhanced by several 2+2 realizations. For starters, why are some of these people being so nice to me? That alone makes me suspicious. They have no reason to be, and I don’t remember some of them being all that nice before. Why this sudden change? I mean, wouldn’t it make sense that they were simply after something? (My rabbit fur hat comes to mind, but it could be anything!)

Who would do such a thing? That’s a good question and one we could contemplate at length. It’s no secret that the government has been very interested in me for years, both for my outspoken editorial writing and my singing voice. Don’t you think these people would like to put some apparati in place to keep tabs on me, to mine my mind for useful information about me and my surroundings, and obviously to impart an occasional subliminal message into my fragile skull, like Eat less foreign food!, or Stop wearing hats!

It’s ironic that we caution the kids about getting involved with Internet interlopers when we ourselves are, in all likelihood, falling victim to the same nefarious scams. I have every reason to believe there are numerous agencies at work here, faux friends, posing as people who seem to know me. It’s quite a disturbing picture, let me tell you.

During one recent contact with a person, I noticed I was asked a lot of questions—personal questions, like about how I was doing and that sort of thing. I mean, What the hell!

Along with government agencies, in all likelihood there are a spate of marketeers involved as well. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that every time we turn around we’re being sent personal advertisements on the things that “coincidentally” link with our interests—pornography, for instance. And how often am I being asked these certain particulars by people who I haven’t been in touch with for decades? (“Hey, how ya doin’? So, what kind of psychosexual fetishes are you subscribing to these days?” And that from a friend of my mother’s!)

I just want to caution everyone that whoever you think you may have rekindled some old flame with, it’s probably all a calculated sham—both on their part and, ultimately, yours. Take my advice—find yourself a book club. At least you’ll know with whom you’re dealing and why, although I'd avoid Internet book clubs if possible.

As for those many people who’ve established computer links with me by way of these various electrical group settings—I’m on to you! Don’t expect me to fall for any more of your inquisitive deception.  It’s not going to work, so find yourself another patsy in my old high school almanac.

From now on I'm only responding to pencils!

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Various Kinds of Crap ...

Once again I find myself being plied with questions on a constellation of topics—our broken education system, breast implants, snowstorms, the Super Bowl … Once again I find myself working diligently to balance prompt professional responsiveness with tending to the aggressive diarrhea I somehow managed to contract this afternoon …

I would guess that snow is on everyone’s mind this evening, or at least it’s on my mind, and since I’m an unapologetic narcissist, that basically means everyone's. When we start to speak of snow, I think it’s important not to confuse the different kinds. Contrary to many popular myths, snow is as varied as the DNA that pulses through the monkey house, and I’m not even talking about snowflakes, or monkeys that wears hats and make those expressive faces on TV shows. I’m just talking about regular monkeys here, so don’t try and confuse me.

Tonight’s snow was what’s known as white powder, which is somewhat different than wet snow and, of course, not to be confused with cocaine. White powder is good for skiers, although what’s good for skiers isn’t necessarily what’s good for me, because the last time I skied I lost my hat, which was in Colorado, and for all I know it's still there, doing no one any good.

Which brings me to the question of whether or not monkey’s ski—which I’m often asked—and I vehemently explain that few monkeys live in cold climates and, consequently, favor summer sports, like kayaking and outdoor grooming. While there are so-called winter monkeys—the ones who wear coats—most of them live in and around Russia and, therefore, are discouraged from skiing, which is considered a barbaric western sport and not particularly kulturney.

Which reminds me of a Steven Seagal movie I watched last night called Driven to Kill, which as you might imagine is about a man—a Russian man, in fact, you see, which is why I’m mentioning it, for I’m not as arbitrary as some of you might imagine—who is driven to kill. And kill he does—with a vengeance, if you’ll forgive the obvious glibby—a cavalcade of Russians and Americans alike, which I appreciated because it showed a kind of  wonderful post-Soviet equality. Steven does a rather good Russian accent, incidentally, except in several scenes where he forgets to, and once again I’m impressed with how he manages to master speaking the language outright for a fluid flow of great Communist dialogue in several conversations. (Yes, I understand that Communism fell, or folded, or did something it never intended to, but let’s face it—to those of us born in the Cold War era, much as we’ve come to love them and their kasha, those guys will always be Communists in our hearts.)

Which brings me to All in the Family, which is certainly one of the best television shows ever and one I’ve sorely neglected honoring in this here Blah-ugh! It’s a weird travesty to me, I must say, just how poorly the DVD collections were manufactured, considering what a landmark and brilliant work it was. They jam all the discs on one spoke in the box on top of each other, which sucks for those of us who treat our discs with respect, and they offer absolutely nothing in the way of extras, which sucks for those of us who want--and expect--extra out of life. Yet another example of man’s injustice to man, but I can’t get into all that now.

Nor can I properly expound on the many merits of All in the Family, which lampooned our weird world and culture and stuff throughout the 1970s even better than Mad magazine, and touched on just so many fascinatingly hysterical fodder topics, like Communists, families and the differences between snow colors. (Actually they never did address that, but you get the implication, I hope.)

Which brings me to Martin Luther King Day, which was yesterday, or as perhaps it’s more politically correct to say, Monday. (God knows I’ve offended enough people with my callous references—no need to add to the list!) Again, I have no time or energy to expound or expand—I’m struggling to tame this diarrhea, among other things—but it’s interesting to note the coming of Black History Month (which is February, or as the white man calls it “Feb-u-ary”) and this becomes a solemn time to look at everything and be all serious.

I, myself, often reflect on a great column I wrote years ago when I was doing my "Education Consumer" column (back when blogs were nonexistent and we called them "columns" or "crap that Jarret wrote). Anyway, I did a great piece on the month, wherein I interviewed some black civil rights leader woman who kept calling me Honey, and she explained—which I almost found a fascinating and logical concept myself, after having read the Malcolm X autobiography—that there shouldn’t be a special month for blacks because it highlights or implies that blacks are different and separate of mainstream America. See, now we can get into a whole serious discussion about this--during which time you could criticize me for using the word "black"--but I still have diarrhea, so it’s not going to happen. The point, really, is just that Monday was Martin Luther King Day and I didn’t have a thing to wear.

Which brings us to the Super Bowl, breast implants, the crippled education system and the Gong Show—all of which I hope to address very soon in one or several upcoming Blah-ughs!

Meanwhile, I want all of you to think warm thoughts and keep your mind on the snow while you’re driving, or on monkeys while you’re sitting at home grooming yourself. That’s about the most logical and heartfelt advice I can offer at this time, but that’s because I have diarrhea, so you can’t hold me responsible …

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

On Global Warming ...

January 7, 2014:  Once again I’ve touched a nerve with my candor, concern and comedy. What the hell is it about me that makes people want to fight or leave the room or cast stones or cast shoes or polish shoes or wash their hands … ?!

People are demanding I make a definitive statement on Global Warming, so I thought I should hit the pause button on my Seagal movies—I just got four new ones from the library, incidentally, including Black Dawn, The Keeper, Into the Sun and Born to Raise Hell—and take time to explain myself (just like I did to the police when they caught me outside that woman’s window watching her make a soufflĂ©).

Based on the wealth of evidence that various parties have been presenting, it seems like there is ample data and so-called authoritative testimony to support any and each view if someone wants to have that view supported. This is what I find so discouraging about these discussions, because they take us down a pointless road. As much as we’d like to believe it, I really don’t think anyone’s opinion is ever going to be swayed one way or the other, excepting in those extremely rare cases where they’re more intelligent than I am, so all it serves to do in the end is escalate emotions. (Jack and Shannon are just one example, but there are others—Shannon and Jack, Jack & Shannon, Shannon & Jack, Jak & Shannun, Sh'nun & Yak …)

So what could I possibly add to any of this, except more stomach acid.

No, I’m thinking logically, as both Mr. Spock and myself are wont to do. I’m thinking about the details that dance on the periphery of this whole discussion, and that’s where I see something worth talking about.

For me—a simple, albeit extremely handsome man—it’s all about what I can do to address environmental issues at the grassroots level. One of my prickly peeves is people who pointlessly idle their cars for lengths of time, despite a state law that limits it to three minutes (and I believe even disallows it entirely outside of school buildings, which ironically is where so much idling takes place—and not just in the administrations).

It seems such a simple and obvious thing to me that the world—at least the town—is a better place when auto emissions are reduced. I mean, who could argue with that? Is anyone in favor of exhaust? Doesn’t it kill hundreds of suicides each year in their garages? Doesn’t it smell awful? Isn’t it just good old-fashioned pollution and shouldn’t we want less of it?

Is there anyone (excepting perhaps C. Montgomery Burns) who isn’t in favor of recycling? I mean, can’t we agree that if it’s possible to create a little less plastic, or use a little less paper, or re-use stuff over, that we’re helping the world at large? I mean, this is what we’re telling kids in nursery school. There must be a modicum of truth in it.

So I think for most of us, that’s all we need to know. It’s probably enough to know anyway. And while I appreciate and admire those who actively work at creating good changes (and I’m not saying what they are, folks!) at the larger levels, for most of us schlubs—even the incredibly handsome ones—it suffices that we perhaps do a bit more walking when we can, try to kill the car engine a bit more often, and try to be a little conscious when it comes to our consumption in its various forms.

(Once again, we return to consciousness and all the glitter it entails. Please refer to other Blah-ugh! posts, like this one … or don’t. What do I care what you do, as long as you shut that god-damned car engine off, you nit!)

Sometimes I wish I had more power to make a difference, but alas I find I’m just an impotent man (though a gaggle of very grateful women would vehemently disagree!) …

But there is that local opportunity to make things better, and since I have such a short attention span, and such an inability to take much of anything that seriously, at the very least I can … Well, you get the idea!

Okay, Seagal Time! Carry on …

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Don’t Throw Steven Seagal Out with the Bath Water!

January 5, 2014:  An essay on the great Steven Seagal has clearly been way too long in the writing … In fact, the glory and essence of his work, to me, is well worth the devoting of my first lucid thoughts of 2014.

I’m thrilled to be re-watching On Deadly Ground as we speak, wherein once again he manages to play a white guy who’s simultaneously a lot of other races and nationalities—in this case Native American, or as the Indians used to call them, Indians. He’s an explosives and mayhem expert where oil refineries in Alaska -- and Michael Caine -- are concerned, but he’s also—as you’d expect Seagal to be—the benevolent protector of his drunken native people. He directed this one and I say without hyperbole that he does as fine a job directing as he does acting.

But here’s the shocker—I’m not trying to be yocky. I’m summarily impressed with Seagal—his product and, more importantly, his take on things. This movie, in fact, is quite a thoughtful and noble plea for environmental concerns and anti-corruption, anti-twisted greed, aside from being a great action ride. It culminates with the kind of frank, forthright speech at the end of the movie that I might have written in an editorial, and while it's a tad didactic, I admire it, because why the hell shouldn't we be more didactic when the world is so ridiculously corrupt and polluted. To me Seagal really earns some credit and respect for his vision and audacious care, and while you may simply see him as a one-dimensional action figure—or a serial sexual harassment suit magnet—I just can’t let those claims take away from his work, which I find most enjoyable.

We all need heroes, I continue realizing, at least in fiction where things always work out well. For some, we need a vigilante type who makes us feel safe from the dark forces we feel are roaming our neighborhoods and knocking over our mailboxes. For some, it's enough that an amorphous bad guy gets put away, because it represents a diminution of "bad." For others -- I think me included -- we need someone to stand up to the dark forces wearing suits who profit from the destruction of baby seals and the like. Getting to see them spanked by someone like Seagal gives us hope that the environment won't be obliterated before it's too late, or the CIA won't continue monitoring our brain activity while we're home on the toilet.

You might think I’m joking when I say that I not only re-discovered and remembered how much I adored all of his early work this week, but today (or yesterday, depending on when I finally bother to complete my essay) I went to Fie and bought up a catalogue of his DVD’s. It’s great when you get excited about something that’s not particularly popular at a given time, for you’re able to discover bargains, and so I got the blue rays (Blu-Rays) of both Under Siege I (which actually is one I don’t remember liking that much, but will probably prove rewarding) and Under Siege II (which I like) for only $7.00 each. Also, I scored this awesome four-pack that contains not only On Deadly Ground, but Out for JusticeHard to Kill, and Exit Wounds. I also got a copy of Marked for Death, which I believe—and as you probably remember better than I—is the one with Screw Face. And of course I grabbed a copy of Above the Law, though I was disappointed that it wasn’t available in widescreen, as all the others were. (I actually passed on Fire Down Below, which you’ll remember as his adventure in Appalachia, but I may rethink that, because there is some enjoyable violence, some of his songs are used, and I think he even square dances in one scene. (Plus, I actually adore hearing him say “Appalachia.”))

You can always tell a Steven Seagal movie because the title is generally a prepositional phrase. This tended to change in his later films, but that’s probably why those weren’t as good. I was a committed fan for a long time, but there were too many disappointments in the 21st century with his direct-to-video fare, largely due to his weight gain, which seemed to erase his ability to break people’s limbs. The last new movie of his I watched—I don’t even remember the title—he barely seemed involved at all. And while his hairline never seemed to recede (as we all know mine has) he put on pounds as if he might have had some liver damage or something.

To me Seagal is the intelligent man’s action hero, if you can grasp the paradox. (Hell, you’re a Blah-ugh! reader—you’re clearly capable of anything!) From his first movie, in which he lambasted the corruption of covert government antics, he really has strived to make statements, albeit simple ones, that celebrate the downtrodden little guys in their helpless juxtaposition to big business, big government, various corruptions and the like. He really does put some valid political perspective in all these battles (at least in his early movies) and I appreciate that. It helps us savor each groin kick just that much more.

AND THIS JUST IN:  As I readied to post this, I just saw online that Seagal is going to consider a run for governor of Arizona. That's exciting, of course, for the javelina and residents of Tucson. I only hope he lives up to his heroic personas ...