Jack's Rant December 24, 2010

The Fact Is…

“Just the fact, please, just the facts”, as Joe Friday was known to say on the popular ‘50’s cop drama “Dragnet”. Facts are an important thing, in particular when writing history.

Fact is, George Washington had 316 slaves living on his estate when he died, at least that’s what’s reported on the Mount Vernon web site.

I have no reason to doubt that of all groups the Mount Vernon society of historians would under report the number of slaves that George Washington owned when he died. But, one asks, who came up with that number. It was likely logged as an asset with someone who was in charge of his estate, and, as slaves were of value for his heirs, proper accounting of all of Washington’s assets were important.

Now, it could be that they grossly underreported the number of slaves. Or over reported. I have no idea. They don’t site a particular document validating that he did or didn’t own.

As a fact, we know that there was housing were slaves lived in Mount Vernon, so the notion that good ole George owned a few seems to be certain. The exact number, I can’t be sure.

So, the facts.

We get to much information these days, it seems, if we chose to look for it. And often many of us, like me, who wanted to know how many slaves Washington owned, turned to the internet.

Pending on the query, the all knowing web can offer up a plethora of choices. Sorting though hundreds of links, you can choose the one that best supports your viewpoint best, even if it’s not true. Who cares.

You have a source that supports your idea even if it isn’t true and therefore you can cite it as fact. Woo hoo!

It seems today you can substantiate almost any claim, true or not. President Obama is not a US citizen, proof on “obamacrime.com”. So it must be true.

Recently a huge amount of uncensored documents have been posted on Wickileaks.org. Now this has put a lot of people in Washington (who was named after the slave owner, by the way) in a thither.

Most of the information, if not all, is classified. Releasing it to the eyes of the public is nothing less than what Richard Nixon went through during Watergate.

God forbid anyone should see the raw data of what solders in the trenches or diplomats were actually communicating about international situations should be allowed to be seen by the American people, or anyone else!

I do not condone Wickileaks for publishing the secured documents. But it speaks volumes about the “facts” of what is actually occurring in our world today. Anyone who is willing to sort though the raw data, told from a field officer in Iraq or the diplomat in Egypt, I believe will soon realize that there is a true story to be told here, and one that is not being reported from our government or any news source you choose to believe..

And then you have to ask yourself. Is it true?

As Mark Twain said “When you tell the truth you never have to remember anything.” When was the last time we heard the truth from the government or the news?

I don’t know. I doubt I ever will.

I doubt that we ever have. And that’s the truth! HA!

Less we forget...

I remember Christmas

I am not a religious person. Christmas has always been a non religious event. It’s a day to give gifts and enjoy a good meal. It was a time to be with family and close friends. There was always a place at the table for an unexpected guest.

When I was growing up the holidays were always very special. My parents went to great extent to make our home as festive and welcoming as possible.

It all started the day after Thanksgiving. That’s when the lights went up on the house on my insistence. I would crawl into the attic space and pull down the wooden crate that contained the lights for the house and then assist my dad in stringing them around the exterior of the place.

When I was all of 10 or so, my Uncle Tom, who worked for an aircraft manufacturing company in San Diego, had rescued several reindeer from the company that they had used for some display. Being in disrepair, he thought that we might be able to use them in some manner.

Cleaver man as my father was, he repaired the reindeer and constructed and painted a sled and stuffed a Santa Claus. Wiring the reindeer to the chimney so they looked in flight, the Santa and sled behind, being lighted on the roof, was so unusual for the time, that it made the front page of the local newspaper, the Downey Live Wire.

These were the things that made Christmas special.

And Christmas was always wonderful, until my mother passed away in 1988. My father tried to make the effort, my sisters and I did our best to give joy and happiness until my father passed away in September of 2004.

But it actually fell apart after my mother passed away. And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again.

I remember Christmas.

Jack's Rant, August 19, 2010

Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances:”
So was this and what has become to be known as the “Bill of Rights” was ratified as the first amendment of the constitution of the United States on March 4, 1789, thirteen years after the Declaration of Independence was executed.

This is a very basic concept, it’s a quid pro quo actually, I won’t do anything to you and you won’t do anything to me. In regard to religious beliefs it means you, meaning any city, county, state or federal government shall not, under any circumstances, place laws or ordinances against any religion, of any kind, for any reason to restrict those people from practicing their beliefs. Conversely, no religion shall influence, impose their beliefs on the state (meaning the people) because of the tenants of their beliefs.

Now history will tell us that both the state and religious organizations have sought to impose their ideas on the other. Tisk, tisk, tisk!

Most recently, Proposition 8 was passed in California, ensuring that no one can “marry” except a man and a woman, whereby denying anyone else (as in gay and lesbian couples) from enjoying the same rights as everyone else. The state is suppose to be blind to such matters as the term “marriage” is simply a defining word for the union of two people who wish to be recognized by the state as legally bound to one another and enjoy all those rights and privileges awarded to them as anyone else who is married.

However, a coalition of largely religious factions decided that this has damaged their interpretation of “marriage” and spent millions of dollars to place a measure on the ballot in California denying people of the same sex (it could be two best friends who are not homosexual, you know) getting married as it is against their belief. Please refer to the first amendment. The state has no right to impose religious beliefs on any of its people, any more that the state has the right to impose its laws prohibiting religious beliefs.

Do any of you get this? Some people say the first amendment needs to be amended. Oh, ok, let’s exclude the Catholic Church from practicing in the US because some of the priest molest children, shame on them, let’s vote them out of the country. And while we’re at it, let’s make it illegal for a Muslim group to build a multi-purpose center in lower Manhattan, four blocks away from “ground” zero, because it’s disgracing the memory of those who died in 9/11; BECAUSE, it was some radicals, who happened to be Muslims, who blew up the World Trade Center.

If it had been some radical Catholics, would we insist that the Catholic Church that IS across the street from ground zero be razed to the ground because it’s otherwise a slap in the face of the “hallowed ground” as one advocate referred to it.

I’m sorry, all of this is VERY WRONG! Whenever any zealous individual or group decides to make decisions based on religion or because of it, and attempt to impose their view by legal means of law (meaning the state), we are walking down a very dangerous path, for both those who are of that particular faith, and those who are against it.

The whole reason why the first ten amendments of the Constitution where ratified was to guard “all the people” from the many imposing their beliefs on to the few. This is the very fabric of how this country was woven. And, just because your pastor, priest, rabbi, elder or whomever says that the word of their “God” only allows marriage to be between a man and a woman it does not it make it state law, nor does the opinion of the people can dictate where someone can build a place of worship because it’s “disgracing the memory…”.

All of you who support Prop 8, and/or the objection to an Islamic sect from erecting a multi-purpose building in lower Manhattan should really think about what you’re promoting, because if we all don’t put a stop to this select way of interpreting our Bill of Rights for anyone’s own interests or agenda, instead of for the best interest of the people, we’ll all wake up one day wearing Swastikas on our sleeves and hailing a dialogical dictator who may put you in a camp.

Do any of you get this? I sure the hell hope so!

Jack's Rant Friday, June 18

A News Article:

(June 18) -- Newly proposed legislation would give the federal government authority to seize and even switch off the Internet during a national crisis.The bill, put forward Thursday by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue emergency orders to companies providing services such as search engines, software and broadband Internet, according to CBS. Companies that didn't comply would face a fine. "The Internet can also be a dangerous place, with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," Lieberman said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies: cyberwarriors, cyberspies, cyberterrorists and cybercriminals."

Is this guy stark raving mad???? Give the government the right to shut down all electronic communication???? Congress has come up with a lot of hair brained ideas in the pass but this one reeks of Nazi Germany!

I'm sorry, Mr. Santry, we don't like what you wrote on your blog so we're declaring you a national risk and shutting down your access to the Internet!

This is just the tip of a very large ice burg that has been forming since the Bush administration and it's not a pretty sight! One by one we've seen our constitutional rights stripped away in the name of "national security".

THIS STOPS NOW!

Wake up people, the elected people in congress are not representing us, they're representing some pretty scary ideas, and very large corporations that pull the strings.

I don't care if you're a tea bagger or a left wing liberal, on this issue there should be no party lines and stop this madness in it's tracks before it trods on yet another one of our personal rights!

Jack's Rant April 8,2010

Another Canvas.

I was very fortunate to have parents that encouraged my artistic skills.

When I was just a preen I joined the local art league who every month had a guest “painter” to demonstrate their particular painting skills. Now you have to realize, this was back in the days when painters were “schooled” in painting, unlike today, when anyone with a set of paints, canvas and brush thinks they are a painter.

After I received my BA I attended a master’s program in painting at Otis Art Institute. The instructors at Otis were all amazed at my painting skills. “Very painterly, you should be teaching this class…” they would say, and “where did you learn that?”

It’s not unlike someone wanting to become a concert pianist studying with a professional concert pianist. Unlike so many other “arts” today, you can’t just buy a piano and expect to play at Carnegie Hall.

But I was trained, and as such I consider myself to be a competent painter. I am “painterly”, as I like to say. I have learned many painting techniques that, from what I can tell, have not been taught to a great extent anymore.

Way back when, artists apprenticed to a “master” who taught them their art and technique. Michelangelo didn’t paint the Sistine Chapel alone, much of the work was done by apprentices. Sorry to be the one to tell you!

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. There are many types of artists. I would like to think that all are born with talent, and by chance, because of a parent or teacher who recognized it, nurtured that talent and made them great. Take Mozart, for example. He was writing music at the age of six! His father was a very talented composer (who was quickly overshadowed by his son), who gave Wolfgang Amadeus the proper support and education to develop his skills as both a composer and concert pianist.

Unfortunately, Mozart didn’t have a manager, publicist or an agent to properly exploit him, like so many, not so talented people do today.

It used to be that the arts were supported by heads of state (kings, queens, the church or wealthy merchants, and so on) who not only felt an obligation to make sure that these talents were recognized, but supported as well. And they commissioned works from these artists, and hung them where they could admire and appreciate them.

If you research any number of “the masters”, be it artists, composers, musicians or to a lesser degree writers (after all, have you ever had to deal with a writer?) you’ll find that up to the late 19th century, almost all were supported by the wealthy elite, who relied on who they trained with and their own talent. And they didn’t invest in the artists because they thought that the art was an asset, they did so for the aesthetic value of the work.

Picasso was a classically trained painter. Once he knew the rules, he then broke them. He is one of a number of artists that came from the school of knowing the rules and then breaking them to explore their own vision of what the world had become. He was probably the first to “get” the modern idea of using the mass media to exploit his work, and have representation in retail art galleries across Europe and ultimately abroad.

It was Andy Warhol who really figured it out. He made an art factory. Borrowing on the masters of the past, he had a warehouse of artisans, craftsmen and technicians who executed his ideas in mass quantities appealing to a hungry largely uneducated in art masses who would buy his work in mass quantity and lesser quality not because they liked the work, but saw it as an investment. And so the mold of modern art has forever been cast.

And so it goes for all but a few who manage, despite the challenges of the mass muddled mess of the media and hype, who do actually rise to the surface because of their true talent, not because some P.R. firm has said so, but because they are truly talented, and make it in the world.

But, we can only wonder if there is another Mozart out there, who has been born into our moronic school system that has to put everyone into the same test score box, because it’s not designed to recognize a child’s talent, simply that child’s ability to remember the rules, how is he/she ever going to be discovered?

We can only hope, is there still new thought out there that can learn the rules and figure out how to break them?

I know it's been a while since I've posted a blog - and I'm sorry. I have several that I've written, just never completed. So this is the first in a series that I hope to post within the next few weeks.

The Blab Off

Back in the dark ages of television, and you needed an antenna on your roof to receive a TV signal. In the 1950’s, in Los Angeles there were five channels that most of sets in the greater Los Angeles basin were able to receive – broadcasted from Mount Wilson. KCBS, KNBC, KABC (the own and operated of the networks) and two independents, KTLA, and KTTV.

KTTV and KTLA were the first stations to receive a license from the Federal Communications Agency to broadcast a television signal into the L.A. basin. I won’t bore you with the details, other than to say that obtaining a broadcasting license from the FCC for a radio (first regulated) and a television station was more restricted then, than it is now.

Reception in the Los Angeles greater area was one of the best in the nation, being able to transmit from far above the San Fernando valley and Los Angeles.

A well adjusted antenna was a status symbol of the mid modern suburb. A perfect signal was to receive channels 2 through 13 without channel 2 having a lot of snow because if you did you couldn’t watch “Gunsmoke”.

As I recall, we could receive all of them.

I remember as a child, getting our first television. I couldn’t have been more than five or six at the time. It’s implanted in my mind so clearly that even to this day I remember my father placing it a corner of the living room so it could be viewed from anywhere you sat.

At some point we even bought a plastic screen covering that was tinted a light orange at the top which faded to a green at the bottom so we could watch “color” TV. It lasted all of 2 weeks before it ended up in some drawer never to be seen again.

All TV stations were required by the FCC to produce a certain amount of programming locally. And they also had to devote a certain amount of time to local and national/international news (that had to be operated very much like a non-profit), children’s programming and cultural/arts. It didn’t matter if you were a “owned and operated by” (o and o) or an independent who bought programming from and o and o or some other source.

Oh, and any one entity could only own seven radio and/or TV stations in the country. This law was passed to create a diversity in opinion and to prevent any one broadcaster from being able to sway public opinion. Too bad that law isn’t in place today, thank you Ronald Regan and George W. Bush.

But getting back to when I was a kid and there were only five TV stations in Los Angeles.

Before there were remote controls for your television, you had to manually get up and turn the dial to find the station you wanted to watch. As there were only a few, you could subscribe to the TV Guide that sent out a weekly listing of shows (also notating which were repeats and which were not), or simply refer to the listing in the L.A. Mirror, Times, or Daily paper. In our case, we even had a local paper, the Downey Livewire.

But that said, you could easily map out your TV evening that generally began after dinner and only have to get up a few times to change the channel.

And just as today, commercials interrupted the programming with annoying national commercials and even more annoying local commercials of “Cal Worthington and his dog Spot”.

I’m sure I wasn’t the first to come up with this idea, but I did capitalize on it. The Blab Off. This was a simple switch that had a 10 foot cord. It interrupted the signal going to the speaker of the TV set. So from your chair you could turn off the sound on your TV without getting up and turning off the volume.

I went into the business of making, selling and installing these Blab Off’s” to all our friends and neighbors. As I recall for all of $.50, maybe it was a dollar. My allowance was only twenty-five cents, so I considered that a fair amount of money at the ripe old age of 10.

Slowly TV manufactures caught up to the idea that people didn’t like to get out of their chairs to change the channel or adjust the volume, and developed a remote box tethered to the TV by a thick cable. Revolutionary!

It was cumbersome, people tripped over the cable disabling the TV, and overall it was more trouble than it was worth. As early as 1957 Zenith invented a remote control affectionately called “the clicker” – a remote control about the size of a pack of cigarettes that used ultrasonic sound produced by clicking 3 tonal rods to change channels and control volume. It added another $100 to the price of a TV so it’s not surprising that the technology did not become affordable until the 1960’s.

Of course the technology of today’s remote controls uses infrared red to communicate a vast selection of command choices at your finger tips.

And we have become ever so dependent on personal remote technology, from the wireless signal to our computers to opening our garage doors, and much more. But still the one that seems indispensable is the TV/Cable remote control that allows us to silence commercials and change channels at will.

Last night I dropped the remote control. It didn’t work. What was I going to do? I thought, ok, I’ll use the cable box to change the channels. But it was black, and I couldn’t see what controls were what. Using a flash light I realized there was no mute button, so I couldn’t mute the commercials. I couldn’t program in what stations I wanted to watch and I was so close to the flat screen I couldn’t see what was on TV. Settling on a program I wanted to watch, I sat back in my chair enjoying it until the first commercial, when I wished I’d installed a “Blab Off”!

Ain’t technology great!

Jack's Rant January 12, 2010

Men of a Certain Age…

I watched this new TV series this evening. I’d watched it before and found it well written and an excellent cast. Amusing, insightful and almost too truthful. But the men of a “certain” age are in their forties. I found the series engaging and one that I could relate to. And then it hit me, I’m twenty years older than any of the men in this series and I’m thinking that this is my peer group. In truth, when I was forty, most of my peer group was in their late 20’s early 30’s, and I realized that as I’ve gotten older, once my peer group hit forty, I have found younger people to hang out with in addition to my “older” friends.

Never mind that they refer me as “Uncle” Jack; it’s endearing after all and I’m old enough to be most of their fathers, or worst, grandfather! At least they don’t call me “gramps” to my face.

My assessment of all of this is rather depressing… I’ve growen… I can’t even say it. The word is “Old!!!”

But the new forty is sixty, right? Because the simple fact of the matter is, if I don’t work for another fifteen years, I’m never going to be able to retire. But then what would I do if I did that?

When I moved from my twenties to my thirties I didn’t think much about it. I didn’t look much different, didn’t act much different, I was the same guy. But toward the end of the thirties I did start to put on some weight, and I did look a little older. No big deal, watch what I eat and I dropped the pounds. (And those men’s face creams that became popular then, wow!)

When I turned forty, I noticed that the Time Magazine that came out that very week had the headline on the front page “Baby Boomers Turn Forty”. I was so in denial that I really thought it was my thirty-ninth birthday, not my fortieth!

The fortieth birthday went pretty much unnoticed other than being dragged up on stage at a local San Francisco hot spot and made a spectacle of by the singing group “The Pink Things” with all the honors one would expect of such a performance.

Then I turned fifty! FIFTY! WHAT THE HELL, when did that happen???? And it was celebrated in a grand style with a garden party hosted by my sister and catered by my favorite Chinese restaurant. In my usual style, as it was an Asian theme party, replete with Chinese lanterns held by bamboo polls, everyone was required to wear silk to the party. And a roast by all my “oldest and dearest” friends, that as “Mame” put it best, “Your sense of style is far off as your youth, who else but a good companion could point out the obvious truths!”

But it seemed clear to me, I’m on the down side of the slope.

And there you have it. I’m a man of a certain age, just not of that age.

Hey, maybe they can make a TV series about that as well!

January 3, 2010

Diplomacy, a lost art.

Diplomacy might be referred to as a way of telling someone they’re full of shit and them feeling good about it.

In actuality, it is pretty simple, it’s one person being civil to another.

Now the English made a sport of it, the French a mockery of it, the Germans an abuse of it and the Italians a disregard for it.

It would be nice if there was some common ground that we could all find to deal with it. I refer to it as a code of civil ethics. It’s something that very few people practice, if at all.

Believe it or not, I like to live by this code, and, stupidly, I hope others would also operate under these guidelines.

First: a person does not act out of malice (unless you’ve pissed them off to do so or vice versa). Generally speaking their actions are of good intent and from those actions would expect positive responses. If one is in doubt of one’s action to the contrary, it is important to explore what the motivations (good or bad) are and obtain all the facts before jumping to conclusions.

Second: weight the results of your actions and their responses. Ask for an explanation before assuming that their action has damaged you, and see if they have a solution to what you might think has influenced you. Although you may think you may believe that you are in the right, the consequence of your response might very well be to your detriment.

Third: Never put a potential opponent on the defensive, if at all possible. Rather engage them in finding a common ground. Ask them how they think it can be best resolved. Or offer a resolution.

But any politeness that might have remained in this world has been lost for all but a few who might remember getting sent to their room without dinner for lack of it.

Forgiveness is all but a forgotten art, and vengeance is something that seems like it’s been resurrected from the crusades.

I have a saying, when you put rules on others, you put rules on yourself. Let me know what the rules are and I’ll try like hell to follow them. But, it’d be nice, just once, for someone to follow any rules at all.

Welcome to 2010. The “I’m the only one who matters on the planet” generation!