MUSIC DESERVES A PLACE...

I just finished watching a rerun of the show BEHIND THE MUSIC, this time about Hall & Oates and it got me thinking. Hall & Oates have been a big part of the lives in this household. I was a fan of their music and my wife was one of those giggly type fans of Daryl Hall for a while at one time. I enjoyed their hits, their videos and probably everything they ever wrote. But I never truly appreciated them until time had passed and I was able to sit back and listen to them all over again after some time apart. And that's something that all music has to offer.

Let me side step a bit and just talk music for a moment. We have a problem in this country where equal time and money is being offered to continue music programs in school but sports gets complete attention. I have nothing against sports getting support and money. It needs to happen. But music does as well. Using myself as an example I can tell you why. For sports, especially in high school, it was something I watched and enjoyed, rooting for the home team. But it wasn't me; it wasn't something I was involved in with the exception of cheering the team and playing in the band at each game. It wasn't something that I took forward with me and could involve me down the road. The same can't be said of music.

When you learn about music you take it forward with you. Twenty years after a music class you could take out an album/CD/mp3 of Bach, listen and then realize that amazing thing that was his music. The man has been dead well over 250 years and yet we still listen to his music. The same holds true with pop music. Songs that I listened to in high school are still around for me to enjoy. The same isn't true of those football or basketball games I went to. So why is it that they get more funding than music programs? I'm not saying cut them; I'm saying they both deserve attention and support.

So where do Hall & Oates come into this? A love of music is where. As I watched the program each note that played had memories attached to it. Not just memories but emotions as well. I know there were a number of people who made fun of the duo for various reasons. In high school the fear of being gay (keep in mind this was the 70s) had guys making fun of their album cover for DARYL HALL & JOHN OATES, referred to as the silver album. No truth behind rumors but teens can be stupid. Their fun loving videos had critics ridicule them during the 80s. And their never ending stream of hits made jealous people give them hell later on. Again the critics turned on them because they weren't edgy. No they weren't. Instead they were giving people something they enjoyed that they loved doing and that has held up much longer than the edgy people critics adored.

If you don't believe me pull out any issue of ROLLING STONE magazine from the earliest to most current editions. Look at the albums and artists that they hold in high esteem and praise unendingly. Then (if you chose something older than 5-10 years) notice how many of those highly praised critic darlings are still around or even listened to. I've often felt that by intended to present themselves as arbiters of tastes, critics often raise a snobbish nose in the air when something good is present to prove they are above the fray. All it ever did for me was show me what to avoid and what to enjoy.

Okay I got distracted again. Back to Hall & Oates. As I watched the show I kept marveling at the amount of music they had written and performed and how important it was to me. The memories and emotions came flooding back to me. Some were personal and others were nothing more than emotions that the music and lyrics elicited in me then and now. For someone to be able to do something like that is amazing. These two gentlemen, along with several other co-writers, had that ability then and now.

Music back then also did something that kids today may never get the chance to experience. Several things actually. First off they may never get the chance to hear actual music being played either on CD or live. Bands too often want canned music, in particular pop icons. Computerized and autoloaded vocals are abundant. That's sad. Secondly while music has always been a business there were tons of artists in the past who poured their hearts and soul into their music. Again, the creation of music as a product has led us to pop charts filled with performers who do little in the way of being honest and putting themselves into their music. That too is sad.

So what is someone to do? I would say to start with go back the basics. Go back and discover that great music of the past that is there for all to enjoy in so many ways. Youtube offers tons of those old classics. Mp3s aren't that expensive and can be downloaded. CDs have reduced in price and can be had for less than when they were initially released. When you find that music rejoice in it. Let it pour over you once again like it did the first time.

Looking back I've been thinking about Hall & Oates after that show. I thought back to each album they made. I've got all of them in one form or another, at least by the duo. I still have a few solo CDs to pick up. As I thought about those albums and looked through them I found another item that kids today will never experience. That's the joy of finding a great song located in the middle of the hits, songs that never played on the radio but were on the album and were sometimes better than the hits themselves. Almost every band had that but today? It's all about the hits, downloading single songs and missing out on the rest.

Using Hall & Oates think about it. You may remember ABANDONED LUNCHEONETTE and the hit single "She's Gone". But "When The Morning Comes" and "Las Vegas Turnaround" are great too. BIGGER THAN BOTH OF US had "Rich Girl" but it also had "Back Together Again" and "Do What You Want To Do...". VOICES had "Kiss On My List" and "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin" but it also had "How Does It Feel To Be Back" and "Everytime You Go Away". Then there were the albums that didn't generate the number one hits but had great music as well. ALONG THE RED LEDGE featured "It's A Laugh", "Melody For A Memory" and "I Don't Wanna Lose You". X-STATIC had "Wait For Me" and "All You Want Is Heaven".

As for Hall & Oates they carry on, still touring. Daryll Hall has found a home with the internet crowd first with his show LIVE FROM DARYL'S HOUSE where he brings in current pop artists to his home to have fun playing his songs and theirs. He just had another show on the air called DARYL'S RESTORATION OVERHAUL which is about him restoring his new house from colonial times. John Oates records solo as well as touring with Hall. And all the albums that happened after their run at making history as the best selling duo of all time have been just as good as the early ones. 

Here's a suggestion. Go to your closet and find those old albums or CDs. Put them on and give them a listen, from start to finish not just searching for the hits. Choose someone not on the charts now. Some ideas? Alice Cooper "Under My Wheels". The Allman Brothers "In Memory of Elizabeth Reed". America "Riverside". Art Garfunkel "Traveling Boy". Atlanta Rhythm Section "Champagne Jam". Bachman Turner Overdrive "Gimmee Your Money Please". The Band "The Weight". Billy Joel "Summer Highland Falls" or "Miami 2017". Black Oak Arkansas "Lord Have Mercy On My Soul". Blood Sweat and Tears "Lucretia Mac Evil". Bloodrock "DOA". Blue Oyster Cult "Career Of Evil". Bob Seger "Nutbush City Limits". Boz Scaggs "What Can I Say". Buddy Miles "Them Changes". Burton Cummings "My Own Way To Rock". Carole King "So Far Away". The Cars "Moving In Stereo". Cat Stevens "Wild World". Chase "Handbags And Gladrags". Cheap Trick "Hello There". Chicago "Introduction", "South California Purples", "Loneliness Is Just A Word" and "Happy Cause I'm Going Home" (sorry I'm a huge Chicago fan). Cinderella "Shake Me". The Clash "Train In Vain". Climax Blues Band "Couldn't Get It Right". The Commodores "Machine Gun". Concrete Blonde "Bloodletting". Cream "I Feel Free" and "Strange Brew". CSNY "Carry On" and "4 + 20". Culture Club "I'll Tumble 4 Ya". Curtis Mayfield "Move On Up". That's just a partial list from my collection from A through C. Maybe I'll post more another time. Sure there are hits in the mix I shared but I bet it made you remember those songs and say to yourself "Oh yeah, that one. I haven't heard that in ages!"

There was a time when my stereo system meant the world to me. My record collection was huge. I still have a huge music collection but the stereo disappeared. I now listen from my computer. As I think about the music I spent time listening to in the past it makes me think that maybe I need to revamp my audible accessories once more and buy a nice stereo system that can tie into the whole entertainment realm here at home. Maybe it's time.

IS ROCK AND ROLL REALLY DEAD?

Recently Gene Simmons of KISS made the comment that rock n roll is dead and that is was murdered by digital downloading. I think he's half right but not correct in how it came to be. He blames downloaders for wanting something for nothing. The fact is before downloading became the norm those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s were making copies of our favorite music using cassette decks. That's how the whole mix tape concept got started. The artists at the time were ticked at anyone doing so and came out against it but it kept going.

The reason for recording wasn't really about wanting something for nothing, it had to do with the high costs of buying an album at that time. Most people who buy music are young people and always have been. That same demographic worked part time jobs and had no disposable income to spend on non-essential items like records. So what many did was buy an album, share it with a friend and record it. If a group of 5 friends bought 5 different albums and shared them they saved part of the money it would have cost to buy those other 4 albums (less the costs of a blank cassette). Had they not done so, they would not have bought the other 4 albums. By listening to that music, by becoming aware of it, they in turn bought tickets to see those acts live or to buy merchandise they otherwise might not have. Most always thought of recording music as expanding the music they listened to rather than killing it. If you found another group you liked then you might buy that next album the group/artist did. If the artwork was great then nearly everyone bought it.

So going back into that last paragraph what was it that killed rock n roll? It was the money record companies charged for the records they were selling. The same thing happened with CDs. Laws were enacted to try and insure that record companies weren't gouging customers. The idea was that when CD technology became universal that the costs for producing a CD would drop and so should the price of those CDs. The record companies never did what they were supposed to and left the prices at the expensive level making more profits as the costs to make a CD decreased. Eventually they were finally pressed on the issue. I remember clearly what happened. The CDs released by established bands remained at the high prices while up and coming or new bands had the prices for their CDs chopped dramatically. I remember when a hot band had a CD for $15 the day of release and on the same shelf was a CD by a new band for $7. Using this formula the record companies could show the average costs of a CD had dropped when in reality the hot band CDs were still the same price.

Now go and see what the artists were making off of those CDs at the time. Most made pennies on the dollar from each one sold. They made more from merchandise and touring (KISS is well known for merch). So if a band made say even $1 from the sale of a $15 CD where did the money go? The record company of course. They used it to promote other bands at times, used it to pay for fancy office space, used it for payola to get radio stations to play their music (note that radio has died somewhat like CDs with the internet; my take on that is the problem with stations playing only one style of music per station. So much for diversity.), they made sure they had plenty of drugs for their acts (a huge expense) and spent exorbitant amounts on promotion that wasn't really needed...then again many of them owned the promotional companies so they were basically shifting money from column A to column B.

What downloading did was make the record company nearly unnecessary. Today groups find their market via the internet. Word of mouth spreads about a group and everyone goes to their web site if they're good. They don't bother downloading an entire album because a number of times the entire album sucks with 1 or 2 good songs. I can name on my fingers the number of albums I bought years ago where the entire album was excellent. Most had half good, half bad songs. The thing is a new artists can reach his market without the record company. They can sell their CD online as downloads for about half of what the record company was charging and the majority of that money will actually go to the artist rather than the record company.

I really don't think rock n roll has died at all. Record companies have and will continue to do so until they realize the digital age is here. Make downloads affordable and people will flock to them. At 99 cents (even though that seems cheap) if someone bought an entire 15 song album we're still at $15. Did the cost of production reach that figure? I honestly don't know but doubt it. Again, the digital age has made it possible for people to build a recording studio in minutes using a computer and the right program and equipment. The old studios are closing up shop left and right (watch the movie SOUND CITY). How successful would an album be if the cost per song were 50 or 25 cents? We may never know.

So is rock n roll dead? No way. Look at any local club and you'll find all sorts of music being played, much of it rock n roll. You'll find metal, punk, pop and more every week locally. By checking out the clubs and buying the home made CDs of those bands you continue to support rock n roll. Maybe not to the tune of millions of dollars that many of those bands from Simmons time earned, but enough for them to do well.

In reading 3 autobiographies from the members of KISS (Simmon's was the only one I haven't read) I can tell you that the amount of money they were making was astronomical. In the end they lost an astronomical amount of money as well due to bad business decisions, poor management of their money and spending it on luxurious hotels, cars, women, drugs and more. While they basked in glory (that they did indeed earn) and become caught up in the excess that the music business was prone to, kids across the world were flipping burgers for several hours just to be able to buy that latest album.

So who is more responsible for the so called death of rock n roll? The kids who downloaded music? The record companies that wanted to charge more than was needed? The bands/performers who felt they deserved to be able to indulge in any and every thing available to them no matter what the costs? I tend to think it was the last two. The fact that a kid can still pick up a guitar, learn a few chords, get a few other friends together with him/her and play at a local night spot tells me that the music isn't dead but the business end of it that preached excess is.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING...

One of the great things you get to witness as you grow older is the changes that happen all around you. Some of them are fantastic. Others are terrible. One that I've watched happen is a change in culture from one that preached tolerance. It morphed into actual tolerance. But the sad truth is that the tolerance that it became is slowly become intolerance of a different sort.

Along with the intolerance is a disappearance of civility among people. It seems people just don't have any stop mechanisms left that tell you not to do something stupid, say something stupid or just be plain inconsiderate. On the other side of the coin people tend to take the smallest of words and actions and twist them into mountainous offenses that they feel deserve far too much attention. The worst culprit of them all that I see these days is the term cultural appropriation.

The basic definition of cultural appropriation is "...the adoption of some specific elements of one culture by a different cultural group." Thank you wikipedia. There was a time when this would have been hailed as something fantastic. I mean to think someone would be so into a different culture as to adopt a portion of that, that they would recognize it and try to incorporate it, assimilate it into the mainstream, well that was a good thing. Gone are those days, replaced with a need to find something wrong in almost everything in the world. Instead of hailing it as this assimilation it's now viewed as trying to do harm to the very people you're trying include. As I said for some reason everyone wants to view everything as an attack as opposed to a celebration.

Recently I've read or heard about some things I thought were absolutely astounding that were found offensive by the politically correct crowd. More amazing was that a number of them happened at college campuses, supposedly the home of free speech and thought! At Dartmouth "...The Phi Delta Alpha fraternity and Alpha Phi sorority had planned a “Phiesta” event on Saturday, a week before Cinco de Mayo, inviting paying guests to hear music, sip “virgin pina coladas and strawberry daiquiris” and enjoy Mexican-themed snacks like chips and salsa, guacamole and burritos, The Dartmouth reported. The event was to raise money for “cardiac care,” according to the newspaper". It was canceled. Why? Because one student of Mexican descent was offended by it. He claimed they were culturally appropriating the Mexican heritage but weren't Mexican. In fairness the picture they posted on a cultural media site was a bit over the top (it showed 2 students in sombreros climbing over a chain link fence) but the intent was nothing more than a party. Where as in the past that would have made for a humorous article in NATIONAL LAMPOON, it is now viewed as something evil.

At another college a fundraiser was planned with students wearing coconut bras, grass skirts and drinking pineapple flavored alcoholic drinks planned by the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity, called FIJI for short since 1894, at the University of California, Irvine. A single student of Fijian descent complained and was then joined by the school's Asian Pacific Student Association claiming that the fraternity was “tacitly committing an act of cultural appropriation and publicly projecting their ethnographic ignorance.” They demanded that the fraternity “Tell members of your organization to stop wearing our traditional/cultural attires, they don’t know jack shit about its cultural significance” and that the FIJI frat must stop using the word FIJI because using the word Fiji is racist. Really? Racist? Not to mention the fact that with the exception of tourism groups in the south pacific I don't know of any culture there that wears grass skirts and coconut bras. As yet these same people haven't protested the tons of stores across the country that sells both of these items for theme parties each and every summer. I'm guessing that's not for off though.

At the AMA awards Katy Perry decided to wear a geisha outfit, had cherry blossoms falling around her and had several dancers in kimonos. Oriental groups complained saying she wasn't Asian and was trying to culturally appropriate their identity. Some considered it racist. A video Perry did had her as an Egyptian queen and a group complained about a necklace one of her servants was wearing which forced the company behind her to digitally edit the necklace out. No Doubt once had a video with cowboys and Indians and they were lambasted and took the video out of airplay. Selena Gomez at a Billboard awards performance appears in Hindi dress including a bindi on her forehead; groups complained, it disappeared. Khloe Kardashian wore an Indian head dress to her nephew's birthday party and the Indian community called her insensitive for wearing it.

The thing that gets me about all of these items is that people find everything about them so offensive. With all of the truly abhorrent behavior in the world, with the truly tragic things that happen the world over, is this the best that people can come up with to be offended by? In almost all of these offenses people weren't setting out to make fun of a group of people or to cause them harm and yet in the hyper sensitive world today there is almost someone somewhere who will be offended by almost everything. There will always be someone who takes offense to every possible item out there. Those that are the most ridiculous to me are people who have no connection to the supposedly offended group but feel the need to show how offensive an item is.

The one group that seems to be the most "guilty" of cultural appropriation is the one group that seems to have nothing that can be appropriated: white people. I imagine there could be something out there that could be taken as offensive but I can't think of any large number of items there could be. Perhaps white Polish people could be offended by Pollack jokes or Irish people offended by drinking jokes. There are jokes about English people with bad teeth (thank you Austin Powers). For the most part these are all tied into jokes that people get are jokes. Those offended by them usually don't get up in arms. But there's something about white people in general that I don't think the easily offended seem to get.

Take a look at this picture.

 

What do you see? For me, I see a blank canvas. It is a square devoid of color that's waiting for a drop of color to be added. A wide combination of colors will turn that blank canvas into a beautiful picture. Back in the sixties this was something that people strived for when it came to civil rights for example. A world where people weren't separated by the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their point of origin. Instead a place was being formed where none of these things would matter and instead of a pure white country we would live in a world filled with color and true diversity, a term hijacked in recent years. That canvas would be the melting pot that this country has claimed since its inception.

But that's changed now. Rather than be a place where we can accept people from all walks of life people find offense in every small detail that might, MIGHT, take from a culture they belong to simply by the place of birth of their ancestors. They take offense to someone using a symbol of their religion with no intent of malice or understanding of what the offense even is. They take offense to those who aren't their color or from their point of origin using things from their heritage with no intent of malice at all. Everyone seems to want to find offense in everything going on today rather. Had nothing been said in most of these cases then no one would have known, no one would have jumped on a pedestal to claim offense and perhaps, in some cases, some good would have been done.

Can you imagine a world where the politically correct ruled? There would be no Mexican themed restaurants because that would be offensive. Toss out the guacamole and chips. And isn't there more things than tacos in Mexican cuisine and how does a bell come into play there? There would be no pizza places or Italian restaurants. Forget Chinese restaurants with their Chinese symbols and cherry blossom decor. McDonald's would have to change for fear of offending the Scottish. Auntie Anne's would have to go because uncles aren't included. Why Five Guys Burgers and Fries but no Five Gals, no Jill in the Box to offset Jack? Is Moe's culturally appropriating Mexican food by offering burritos? Since Roy Rogers was a cowboy should Indians be offended that there is a restaurant chain named after him? Is the Tilted Kilt offensive to Scottish people? Maybe it's racist to call a place "WHITE" Castle. Fat people would be offended by the name Big Boy. Could Texans be offended by Lone Star Steak House? The only reason Burger King gets a pass is because Dairy Queen offsets it by making a royal pair.

With the whole rigmarole about the Washington Redskins what about team names? Maybe the people who moved here from Norway would be offended by Minnesota laying claim to the Vikings. Atheists could be offended by names like the Angels or the Saints. Tuna lovers would be upset by a name like the Dolphins. Short people might be hurt by the name the Giants. Since Redskins is bad why isn't the Chiefs an act of cultural appropriation? Could religious groups be outraged by a team called the Wizards? If the team is not completely composed of Latin Americans, how can San Diego State be called The Aztecs? Alcoholics Anonymous might find offense to a team called The Boilermakers. I'm guessing the Irish are more proud of The Fighting Irish rather than offended, unless there is a pacifist Irish group that is upset. If you don't see why the Rhode Island School of Design's hockey team, The Nads, could be offensive never mind.

The thing it there is something out there to offend everyone. People, lighten up! And I don't mean that as in skin tone so don't go there. I mean don't seek out the worst in people's intentions. Don't think that by simply putting on a head dress, wearing a particular style of dress or celebrating a holiday that doesn't belong to that person's culture it means something evil is going on. Life is far too short to be offended by everything in this world. Work towards the good in life, worry about the big things and don't get wound up over the small ones. And maybe the best thing would be if people decided to try and make this world the place we once talked about, a world where any mention of someone else's color, ethnicity or culture was accepted as a compliment instead of an insult. Truth be told the majority of people who raise a stink over something so minor usually do so either to get attention or to find a way to use it to make money.

How about we try to incorporate every group out there into one? Stop trying to pull everyone apart and let's get together instead. Embrace the fact that people love you for who you are, from where you came from, for the color of your skin and for the differences that you bring to the table. Realize that the majority of the people in this world admire you for all of those things and if they mention them or bring them into an event or name their intent isn't to show it as a bad thing but because they admire you and want to bring you into the bigger picture which is a place where we're all part of one big happy family instead of a house full of weird brothers and sisters living in separate rooms getting pissed off because someone looked our way.

The more offended people get at things like the names of teams or celebrating Cinco De Mayo even if you're white, the more problems will come of it. Why not go back to that empty canvas and try adding your color to it instead of trying to bleach everything off of it?

THE DRIVE-IN EXPERIENCE!!!!!

Warmer weather is on the way and soon vacations will kick in, ball games will take place and picnics will pop up in parks across the country. And one other thing will take place in towns that are fortunate enough to have kept alive a grand tradition in American culture: Drive-Ins will be open!

The Drive-In started longer ago than most would think, the first being patented in 1932. By 1948 there were 820 Drive-Ins across the country. But it was in the fifties when Drive-Ins reached their peak popularity with close to 5,000 Drive-Ins in existence by 1958. They begin to slowly fade away in the sixties and seventies and that has continued. Owners found that they could make more money selling off the land their Drive-In was on to developers. It wasn't worth the battle for some. Those that have stuck it out do so because of their love for the medium.

And who could not love it? Anyone who has not experienced a Drive-In has no clue what those who love them are talking about. They have no concept of what it is all about, why anyone would want to go sit outside and listen to a small metal speaker play the soundtrack when a perfectly good 3-D version of the latest hit can be seen indoors complete with air conditioning. If you know someone like this and have a Drive-In nearby, kidnap them and take them to the Drive-In. Let them experience it and tell them to soak it all in rather than complain about the missing AC.

The Drive-In was and remains an experience. Think back to your childhood, the first time you went to a Drive-In. The sun was setting and it wasn't near dark and yet when you pulled up the first thing you saw was a brightly lit sign with flashing bulbs forming an arrow pointing to the entrance. On that sign was a list of what was playing that night and with luck what was coming next week. The traffic was backed up but the slight breeze kept you from having to inhale the exhaust fumes of the car in front of you, packed tight with teens on their way in or another family out for the night. Looking up you could see the name of the Drive-In written in neon on the back of the screen, a screen which seemed larger than any you'd ever seen before. Your father pulled into the ticket booth, paid the full car price and in you went.

Not yet in the actual area you drove forward, a fence blocking your view of what was to come. As the fence slowly descended you saw it all, a filed of gravel or sometimes gravel drives with grass parking areas for the cars. Row upon row of posts holding two speakers, one for cars on either side, could be seen. Up front the portions put together to make the one big screen were visible but it didn't matter, it was still huge. And below that was a playground filled with kids already swinging, teeter tottering or spinning on a playground merry-go-round.

Finding the perfect spot was a task to which your father was up to. Cruising up and down the various lanes, looking for that spot that was just right, not too close and not too far, with enough of an incline so that even those in the back seat could see the screen over the head rests. It also had to be close enough to the concession stand that all bathroom breaks could be taken care of quickly without missing the movie or so that the walk from stand to car was not so distant that half of the popcorn purchases spilled on the way back.

The playground was a place to behold. While today no one would think of leaving their child unattended, in the past it was a safe haven where no one was disturbed or kidnapped. It was a place where you could go before the movie began and play to your heart's content. At least until the first previews began. While a certain number of injuries occurred here (sorry about the chin sis), for the most part this was safe school type playground toys. The worst part of the playground was when they had a particular item everyone loved and you had to wait in line for a turn to get on. For the kids it was a fun time, for the adults, some time to spend alone without the kids there begging to go to the concession stand.

The concession stand. That holy grail of treats that were advertised from just prior to the movie beginning to the intermission between. The minute you finally parked you began to notice it. The aroma of freshly popped popcorn blew across the early evening breeze and instilled a craving that was more intense than you could handle. If it weren't for the playground you'd be begging to go to the stand immediately. Once you returned from the playground it was of the utmost importance that you dragged your mom or dad there.

Concessions stands differed from place to place. Some were simple structures that gave you the basics. Others were things of beauty. I recall one that impressed the minute you walked in. The walls were paneled and spread every 3 feet were posters of coming attractions. There was no way you would leave without checking each and ever one. The stand itself had chrome rails to direct you down the line and each and every portion of the counter was brushed stainless steel. As you moved down the line you were exposed to glass doored bins that held goodies from hot dogs to hamburgers to pizza burgers to the ever popular Castelberry Pit Cooked Barbecue Sandwich. Next were trays with bright orange lights illuminating cups of Buttercup popcorn or boxes of popcorn. Then came the drinks. Some places poured them fresh from machines we now see at fast food joints. Some had cups filled and ready to go. The most impressive, for a child, was the place that had a person with a hose like you see in your sink but that would, with the press of one button or another, dispense either Coke, Sprite, Root Beer or some other flavor...all from the same handle! Lastly was the candy rack, filled with the same treats movie lovers have grown to adore...Goobers, Raisinets, Caramel Creams, M&Ms and more. Dad paid and it was back to the car, goodies in hand.

Perhaps the neighbors had come to the Drive-In too, or someone your folks knew. They'd stand around a bit talking, discussing their day and their lives. They'd laugh and joke and talk about what they came to see, which movie they thought would be best. More friends they knew would come along and they'd enjoy each other's company before the sun finally set and the movie would begin.

As it got dark, you settled in for the first movie. With any luck previews started your night, followed by a cartoon or two, just as dusk began and before it was dark enough to actually watch the movie you came to see. Pajamas were put on, a blanket spread over the top of the car and you and your siblings lay down to watch that first movie. Back at the concession stand dad had made sure to see you weren't bitten by mosquitoes by purchasing a Pic mosquito coil. He lit the end and it slowly burned down sending forth those noxious fumes that would keep all bugs away.

At intermission it was always time to hit the concession stand, at least for a bathroom break if not for more goodies. The only difference was this time the amount you took back wasn't near that of the first visit. Perhaps a drink to share. If you loved previews of coming attractions this was your time. During the intermission you were able to watch ads for things you might have missed at the concession stand and now wished you hadn't. While the colors on the ads were long since faded or turned purple, the items they talked about still looked great. The countdown began between ads, showing us the minutes until the second feature began. Finally that movie started. The weakest sibling always fell asleep first. The movie lover stayed awake all night long.

The movie would end; the announcer would thank you for attending their theater and remind you to replace the speaker before leaving. Dreamy siblings were put in the car, you joined them and watched as the line of red tail lights headed for the exit. If your dad waited you noticed cars still parked around the lot not realizing (until your teen years) just why they would still be there. Finally you headed home, amazed at the entire spectacle of that evening and ready to experience it once more. 

You see, in attending that Drive-In you weren't simply going to a movie. You were becoming part of a community. You were in your own fenced in world, enjoying that which you loved most in the days before you could download or stream anything you wanted to see. And actually being a part of the community was more exposure to people than most have today. In a world where we spend most of our time relating to other people by posting on Facebook or Twitter, where we rarely leave our houses and where we socialize via media instead of face time, the Drive-In gave us that one on one experience with other people. It wasn't just about seeing the movie, it was about going out. It was about being among other people. Sadly, those days seem to be less and less now.

My recommendation is to go out to a Drive-In when it opens nearby. Experience what it's like. Don't complain about the bugs and the heat; take a hand fan and some Off. Make sure that your kids have the chance to see what a Drive-In is really like. Let them play on the swings without feat of minor scrapes, let them have fun. Take some food with you if you like, but make sure you by popcorn that is fresh and drinks that aren't flat by hitting the concession stand. Have friends go to and make a night of it. Heck, invite the whole neighborhood and have a block party at the Drive-In! Above all support your local Drive-In, don't let it just become another part of American culture that dies with time. As those who continue to go to Drive-Ins will tell you, they're still doing business and people are still having a great time. Become one of those people.

LEGGO MY EGGO!!!

One thing that has always bothered me about people on the left is their need to feel superior to everyone else by making you either feel guilty about things you like or simply by trying to outlaw anything you like. It's not that their intentions aren't good it's that they feel the need to force their opinions on everyone else whether you agree with them or not. And if you don't agree they simply try and make the laws change to force you to.

There are tons of examples of this. Maybe you recall when they harped on and on about the fact that plastic bags were harmful to the ecological system of the world and should be banned. They wanted people to use only clothe bags that they would use over and over again. The end result was several deaths and illnesses due to the fact that leakage in those same cloth bags resulted in food poisoning. They ended up getting rid of their plastic bag law. As I said, the intention is good but they never seem to look long term or find out what could happen before jumping headfirst into the issue.

I just read where another left leaning person was upset with Bubba Watson. He just won the Masters Golf tournament and apparently that night around midnight took his family to Waffle House to celebrate. He loves the place and eats there often. Whoever this lady was thought he was setting a terrible example for his kids and the rest of the country by eating at Waffle House. In her mind the food there must be something that should be avoided at all costs. She thinks it contributes to the obesity problem faced in this country. My question is who the hell cares what she thinks? It's his family, his body and his choice of where he wants to eat. What makes her think she should be the final say so on this issue?

The same happened when everyone went crazy and tried to stop people from eating at Chik-fil-a. Because the owners donated THEIR money to anti-gay marriage causes, gay groups were outraged and thought the entire chain should be picketed. Because someone had the audacity to disagree with them they wanted to do financial harm to this company. It was a case of trying to silence someone who disagreed. Saner minds prevailed and the same day they were to be boycotted Chik-fil-a had one of their biggest sales days ever. It seems that the American people didn't like a small group trying to force their beliefs on them, trying to hurt someone for simply having an opinion of their own. They flocked to the restaurants across the country even causing some of them to run out of food to sell. In retaliation for people showing Chik-fil-a support, the gay community staged a protest that would do just the opposite and bring gays into the chain stores to show support for gay marriage. Few people showed and it was a joke on them. Here's the clincher. If you so much as make a point of this issue you're considered a homophobe. The last line of defense is to accuse you of being something you're not. Ah well.

Ex-New York Mayor Bloomberg decided that it was wrong for people to drink so much soda when they went to the movies so he forced a ban on 16 oz. sodas. Sure you could buy two 8 oz. sodas if you like but no, not that dreaded 16 0oz. one. Apparently Bloomberg didn't think you were smart enough to decide what you should or shouldn't have, so he forced you to be unable to buy that 16 oz. drink. The battle is still in court. Aren't you glad (if you live in NY) that tax dollars are being spent to force people to stop drinking Big Gulps? I can't think of anything else that money should be spent on.

How about smoking? They say it's bad for you and I won't argue the point. I'm not someone who enjoys being around someone blowing smoke my direction. The thing is watching the steps taken since this anti-smoking campaign began. First it was warnings on cigarette packages. Then it was trying to get people into corralled areas like cattle where they could smoke. Next were smoke free zones. That switched to smoke free buildings. Then we had no smoking in restaurants. That went on to no smoking in bars. Seriously, no smoking in a bar? I mean you can get plastered past the point of being able to walk a straight line but damn it you can't smoke while doing so! Now people are suing others because they might smell smoke in their house if they live next door to someone who smokes. Are you for real?

All of these issues have one common thread. It always starts with someone thinking that they are the final arbiters to determine what is good for YOU. Not for just themselves but for everyone else as well. They're the ones who think they know what's best so THEY will determine for YOU what you can and can not have or can and can not do. THEY know better than you.

Three great examples of how THEY don't know squat. Remember the alar scare? A group claimed that alar, a pesticide used on apples, caused cancer and tried to get it banned. They even had Meryl Streep (an expert in the field if there ever was one) go before Congress to try and get it banned. The only problem was that no study ever proved their allegations. It didn't cause cancer.

Remember when we were all told that we needed to increase the amount of bran we ingested? It was supposed to be good for us and make us healthier. For about three months everyone began eating oatmeal and making bran muffins. Then all of a sudden a study came out that said oops we made a mistake, eating bran in large quantities does nothing.

Lastly think WAY back to when they decided to force people to stop using DDT. Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" in 1958 and it became the guidebook for environmentalists around the world. What most will not admit to or acknowledge is the fact that there is little to no scientific evidence in anything Carson states in her book, relying on personal anecdotes instead. That's a calling card for left leaning folks. Forget the facts and consider only emotions. The main claims of Carson, that it caused cancer, that it threatened birds, that it threatened the oceans, have all been proven false. On top of that since DDT was banned by so many countries where it could have been used to halt the number of deaths from malaria, millions have died from that disease that was all but wiped out prior to it's being banned. Like I said, if you feel good about making people stop using or doing something you don't like, that's all that matters.

Wouldn't it be nice if folks that had opinions on things just kept those opinions to themselves rather than try and force THEIR opinions on others? And I don't just mean in conversation (which is fine) but in pressing for laws and the like? Wouldn't it be nice if Bubba Watson could enjoy a nice waffle or grilled cheese sandwich or steaming hot cup of coffee without some do-gooder telling him he's a terrible person? Maybe I'm the only one but if I were Watson I think I would have to smile, look that person straight in the eye and tell them to have a nice cup of shut the hell up with a side order of kiss my behind. Then again that's just my opinion. If I were like the rest you'd all find a law forcing you to enjoy that suggested meal for breakfast daily.

CULT OF PERSONALITY

So it hasn't been long since we were brought the antics of Miley Cyrus which garnered her a small amount of condemnation but tons of free publicity which resulted in bigger sales for her music. Since most music is purchased via the internet to say bigger sales of her album of CD makes no sense these days. And then we got word about Justin Bieber and the antics he was involved in culminating with video of his affidavit posted online for all to view. The end result was not the Earth opening and swallowing anyone whole nor the first days of Armageddon. What it ended up being is nothing more than a few pictures and posts in tabloids around the world.

But hang on. These news articles weren't limited to tabloids now were they? Instead these "newsworthy" items made their ways into the mainstream media outlets like ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox. They were joked about on every talk show.  Pundits weighed in on the stories. Everyone seemed to be talking about these stories. I even found myself posting several things about it on Facebook and the like. But later on I thought to myself, why are we giving them any attention at all?

Where are the days when the news reports we watched were actually about news going on around the world? Have we gotten so caught up in celebrities that we now spend every waking minute concerned about them? It's as if we're all those long lost Beatlemaniacs we used to watch swooning at the sight of any one of the fab four. We can't seem to get enough information about something we can not control, would have no interest in being a part of and that in the end just doesn't matter.

Miley Cyrus. Here we have a young girl who's isn't near as attractive as she seems to think, who possesses the body of a 21 year old in healthy condition (for the record all healthy 21 year olds have the same body), who sings well enough (but then there are tons of people who sing well enough and actually my niece has a better voice at a younger age) and who has determined that the only way she can get people to purchase anything she produces is to be as rude and crude as possible. There is the chance that this is her rebelling against the goody two shoes image she had to project while as Hannah Montana on her Disney show. But if you truly have talent, if you can truly write and perform good songs, then why the need for the rest?

Justin Bieber. His bad boy antics have jumped the shark. Here again we have someone who came with a squeaky clean image that now seems to want to be "taken seriously" as a bad boy. The problem is that all of the things he's doing to appear that way have been done before and done better. Not only that but when he makes that tough guy face or tries to act macho he just comes off as a dweeb posing as the school tough. It's perhaps the least convincing performance I've ever seen and having watched several thousand movies that's saying something.

Or how about Kim Kardashian and her clan? Here we have a family whose claim to fame is little more than being famous...for the sake of being famous! Just like Paris Hilton who went this same route we have a young woman who made a sex tape that OOPS! leaked out somehow and was seem by millions online. And did anyone stand up and say how wrong it was? Nope. Instead we made her more money by watching her TV series and buying any product associated with her. We turned her into an instant celebrity.

I remember back when things like this began. It started with ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT focusing on the behind the stage stories involving celebrities. That segued into LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND FAMOUS where we could all start to envy the ways celebrities and wealthy people lived. More shows with these themes surfaced after the powers that be saw how inexpensive the shows were to produce and that people watched them. And watch them we did. I was among those watching and now have buyer's remorse when it comes to those types of shows.

Perhaps it's time we stopped worrying about the rich and famous, the celebrities and began worrying more about ourselves. If we focused as much attention on ourselves and our own day to day lives as we do on celebrities then maybe we'd all accomplish more. I believe that if we did it for only a single day we'd accomplish more than some of these people do in a year.

Imagine how much more relaxing your day would be if every time a news story came on about some stupid thing some stupid celebrity was doing *CLICK* you turned the station. Or if you were looking online and things and ignored the click here to learn more button. I don't need to know about the next time Miley acted outrageous because I already know its coming. She's following the Madonna format of doing something every time her name seems to disappear. I don't want to know about Bieber because here again, I know its coming. He thinks he's a tough guy and one day will try and prove it only to find himself facing a real tough guy who will set him straight in seconds. I don't care any longer about Lindsey going into rehab for her 100th stint. My guess is she'll fall off the wagon with weeks and we'll hear about her going before another judge who will treat her differently because of who she is.

What I would watch is a show where all of these people were treated like real day to day people. Where people look down on Kardashian as an opportunistic tramp. Where someone tosses a blanket over Miley telling her to grow up and act appropriate. Where Bieber acts tough and gets knocked on his ass. Where Madonna is looked at as woman who acts far too young to dress as she does let alone appear more muscular than Arnold does currently. But the chances of a show like that appearing on TV anytime soon isn't likely. So I guess I'll take the easy way out and make sure I constantly hold the remote in my hand.

AWARD SHOWS LOSE THEIR WORTH

I'm running out of colors to use on this one post! I just read an interesting news report that goes along with much of what I said here. I'm posting a link beneath. The gist of the article is that two members of the Academy never watched 12 YEARS A SLAVE but voted for it. Their reason was that "...they said they voted for it anyway because, given the film’s social relevance, they felt obligated to do so." So the piece that I wrote below stating that movies that win the Oscars these days seem to be based more on political correctness or agenda as opposed to what the best picture is apparently is more true than even I knew. A short piece but here is the link:

Academy members voted for Oscar-winning 12 Years A Slave 'without watching it'

So I figured I'd come back after the show and post an update. Yes, I did cave in and watch it though I came in late. It was entertaining enough but still somewhat predictable. The most surprising thing of all was Matthew McConaughey's speech, something you should look up. Of everyone that won tonight he was the only one to thank God. The ONLY one! I ended up with 14 correct choices out of 24 so 58%. How did the rest of you do? Anyway I am highlighting the real winners in green below so you can see how good or bad I did in my predictions. If I was right then there will only be the purple highlighted name. I hope that's clear. LOL. 

I've talked about this for several years now, the fact that the Academy Awards show seems to have lost its glitter after years of being THE show to watch. As a child I was always a movie fanatic. I owned a book on the Oscars that listed every winner from the time it began until the year the book was published. Every year I watched the show and wrote down the winners on a sheet of paper, adding the years not yet covered to the book. But things changed.

Suddenly there was a glut of award shows. It seems like these days there are new award shoes every 2 to 3 weeks. At one time there were three: The Oscars, The Emmys and The Grammy's. Then they added the Tony's. Then the Golden Globes. Suddenly we had the People's Choice Awards. Then there were like 4 different country music awards. Then the Billboard Awards. It went on and on and on until like I said there were new award shows out the whazoo. The more of these shows that aired on TV, the less important they became. It was no longer important to see who won what. But that wasn't the only change.

In the case of the Oscars the choices were changing as well. They changed the same way Hollywood changed. Instead of seeing choices nominated because they were the best movie, movies were nominated because they made a political statement, always a politically correct statement too. Some were good movies but there were so many other good movies released each year that it was far too apparent that the movies being nominated were done so because they made a statement as opposed to being the best films.

A recent editorial discussed this saying that movies based on super heroes and science fiction (the biggest money making films made) would never win an award. I completely agree. It's as if Hollywood considers these films below them, even though the money made form these movies allows for stars puff pieces and non-money making movies to be made. The same holds true for comedies. Look back and see how many comedies have ever won for best picture. The only two that come to mind for me are IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT and ANNIE HALL. Seriously? You don't think that any comedy released since these things started was worth winning?

I can't exactly say when it all changed but there was a change. Not only were films like these not being nominated, the winners were nothing that film goers were even interested in. Think back to the movies that have won over the past decade or so and tell me how many you would watch again. I'm guessing you may have seen some, but to watch again? I doubt it. Here, check out the winners since 2000:

2012 - ARGO

2011 - THE ARTIST

2010 - THE KING'S SPEECH

2009 - THE HURT LOCKER

2008 - SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

2007 - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

2006 - THE DEPARTED

2005 - CRASH

2004 - MILLION DOLLAR BABY

2003 - THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING

2002 - CHICAGO

2001 - A BEAUTIFUL MIND

2000 - GALDIATOR

Of those movies I can think of maybe 2 that I'd watch again without thinking twice. Two more I might consider. But some I can't believe even got nominated let alone won for best picture. If you've ever seen CRASH then you'll know what I'm talking about.

The fact is that the Oscars have lost their glimmer because they no longer represent what the best movies of the year were. Instead they represent causes and ideas that Hollywood and liberals hold dear. If you make a movie that tanks at the box office, or does mediocre business, but the movie pushes forth an agenda then chances are it will be nominated for an Oscar. If you don't believe me look at this years nominees for best picture:

12 YEARS A SLAVE-How terrible this country was in how they treated slaves.

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB-A man works around the system to help AIDS victims

HER-A man can't connect with real people but grows attached to his computer's operating system.

PHILOMENA-A woman searches for the child taken away from her by sinister nuns years ago when she was an unwed mother.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET-True story of a man who ripped people off as a stockbroker, an evil capitalist.

NEBRASKA-An aging alcoholic travels with his son to claim a jackpot he thinks he won.

CAPTAIN PHILIPS-True story of the captain of the ship hijacked by Somali pirates.

AMERICAN HUSTLE-A con artists is recruited by the FBI and forced to help take down criminals.

GRAVITY-A medical engineer and an astronaut try to save themselves after an asteroid leaves them adrift in space.

Of these 9 movies only one was in the top 10 grossing movies of 2103 (GRAVITY at #6). One more was in the top 20 (AMERICAN HUSTLE at #17). The movie I think will end up winning (due to its subject content) is 12 YEARS A SLAVE which came in at 69. What movies were the top ten grossing films, movies completely overlooked for best picture? THE HUNGER GAMES:CATCHING FIRE, IRON MAN 3, FROZEN, DESPICABLE ME 2, MAN OF STEEL, MONSTERS UNIVERSITY, THE HOBBIT: DESOLATION OF SMAUG, FAST AND FURIOUS 6 and OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL. Of the movies nominated I can't think of one I'd want to rush out to see. Of those ignored I've seen 5 and would gladly see the rest. I would bet I'm not the only one.

Hollywood takes itself too seriously. It feels that, like politicians, they know what's best for us and will force feed us movies we don't want to see. Not only that they will then celebrate themselves and pat themselves on the back when it comes Oscar time to show just how wonderful they are, how caring they are and how concerned they are. With the exception of only a handful most talk a good talk but rarely put up their own money when it comes to these causes. But boy will they tell you how concerned they are and then tell us how terrible everyone else is while they read their acceptance speech.

This all being said I guess I should jump on the band wagon. Let's see how terrible I am at the game of picking this year's Oscar winners.

VISUAL EFFECTS:

GRAVITY because of the serious content, not due to the effects.

Losing will be THE HOBBIT: DESOLATION OF SMAUG, IRON MAN 3, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS and THE LONE RANGER.

WRITING ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

12 YEARS A SLAVE again because of the content.

Losing will be THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, PHILOMENA, CAPTAIN PHILIPS and BEFORE MIDNIGHT.

WRITING ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

HER because it's weird enough they'll like it.

Losing will be BLUE JASMINE, DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, AMERICAN HUSTLE and NEBRASKA.

SOUND EDITING:

GRAVITY because the sound is part and parcel with what made this movie.

Losing will be ALL IS LOST, CAPTAIN PHILIPS, THE HOBBIT: DESOLATION OF SMAUG and LONE SURVIVOR.

SHORT FILM LIVE ACTION: JUST BEFORE LOSING EVERYTHING because it sounds devastating. Nobody ever sees these shorts unless they attend a art house screening so they could honestly just skip this and shorten an already over long show. This is not to say they don't deserve recognition, just that most people could care less. The winner was HELIUM.

SOUND MIXING:

GRAVITY for the same reason.

Losing will be CAPTAIN PHILIPS, THE HOBBIT: DESOLATION OF SMAUG, LONE SURVIVOR and INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS.

MUSIC ORIGINAL SONG:

"Let It Go" from FROZEN.

Here is one case where if you ignore the popularity they wonder what you were thinking. Gone are the days when an original song was something you heard on the radio as opposed to only in the movie. Films with songs that will lose are DESPICABLE ME 2, HER, MANDELA:LONG WALK TO REMEMBER. If they go for being politically correctness then MANDELA will win for that reason alone.

PRODUCTION DESIGN:

AMERICAN HUSTLE because you can actually see the design here making it stand out.

Losing will be 12 YEARS A SLAVE, GRAVITY, HER and THE GREAT GATSBY. I meant to say this one but made a mistake in the original post. I'll take the loss on this one though.

SHORT FILM ANIMATED:

MR. HUBLOT simply because it sounds foreign and they like that as a reason too.

Losing will be FERAL, GET A HORSE!, POSSESSIONS and ROOM ON THE BROOM (which I think has something to do with Nancy Pelosi).

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:

THE HUNT. How can it not with Mads Mikkelson (Hannibal Lecter) starring and the subject matter of child molesting?

Losing will be THE BROKEN CIRCLE BREAKDOWN, THE GREAT BEAUTY, THE MISSING PICTURE and OMAR.

MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING:

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB because of the nominees this is the only one they will take seriously.

Losing will be THE LONE RANGER and BAD GRANDPA. Seriously though, these are the only 3 movies they could come up with to nominate?

MUSIC ORIGINAL SCORE:

THE BOOK THIEF because they love John Williams.

Losing will be GRAVITY, HER, PHILOMENA and SAVING MR. BANKS.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:

DIRTY WARS because it talks about how terrible we are when it comes to the war on terror.

Losing will be CUTIE AND THE BOXER, THE ACT OF KILLING, THE SQUARE and 20 FEET FROM STARDOM. I was really stunned by this one. Pleased but stunned.

DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT:

PRISON TERMINAL because they hate that anyone is locked up in prison as if it is someone else's fault.

Losing will be THE LADY IN NUMBER 6, KARAMA HAS NO WALLS, FACING FEAR and CAVE DIGGER.

FILM EDITING:

AMERICAN HUSTLE because from the trailer alone the fast and furious cuts will impress.

Losing will be 12 YEARS A SLAVE, CAPTAIN PHILIPS, DALLAS BUYERS CLUB and GRAVITY.

CINEMATOGRAPHY:

GRAVITY because the rest they've either not noticed or think is highbrow enough.

Losing will be INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS, NEBRASKA, PRISONERS and THE GRANDMASTER.

COSTUME DESIGN:

THE INVISIBLE WOMAN because when it comes to this category if you make costumes that are period pieces you always win. The only competition here is THE GREAT GATSBY so that might win.

Definitely losing are 12 YEARS A SLAVE, AMERICAN HUSTLE and THE GRANDMASTER. I was iffy on this one as you can see. I should have chosen the winner since I don't think anyone saw THE INVISIBLE WOMAN.

DIRECTING:

Steve McQueen for 12 YEARS A SLAVE. Time to start getting PC.

Losing will be Martin Scorsese for THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, David O. Russell for AMERICAN HUSTLE, Alfonso Cuaron for GRAVITY and Alexander Payne for NEBRASKA. Another surprise for me. I have yet to understand how a movie can win best picture and not best director as well.

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM:

FROZEN. Not only a good movie but for once they'll have to recognize the business it did.

Losing will be DESPICABLE ME 2, THE CROODS, ERNEST AND CELESTINE and THE WING RISES (which could win simply because they don't want to recognize the business that FROZEN did).

SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Lupita Nyong'o for 12 YEARS A SLAVE because she's new and they won't want to give it to the rest who've been around for a while. PC time once more.

Losing will be Jennifer Lawrence for AMERICAN HUSTLE, Julia Roberts for AGUST OSAGE COUNTY, June Squibb for NEBRASKA and Sally Hawkins for BLUE JASMINE.

SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Barkhad Abdi for CAPTAIN PHILIPS because he's the one person nearly everyone talked about when it came to this movie.

Losing will be Bradley Cooper in AMERICAN HUSTLE, Michael Fassbender in 12 YEARS A SLAVE, Jonah Hill in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET and Jared Leto in DALLAS BUYERS CLUB.

LEAD ACTRESS:

Cate Blanchett in BLUE JASMINE because, again, she was the one actor everyone was talking about when it came to this movie.

Losing will be Amy Adams for AMERICAN HUSTLE, Meryl Streep for AUGUST OSAGE COUNTY, Judi Dench for PHILOMENA and Sandra Bullock for GRAVITY.

LEAD ACTOR:

Matthew McConaughey for DALLAS BUYERS CLUB not just because of the PC content of the movie but because they've decided this is his year.

Losing will be Bruce Dern for NEBRASKA, Christian Bale for AMERICAN HUSTLE, Leonardo DiCaprio for THE WOLF OF WALL STREET and Chiwitel Ejiofor for 12 YEARS A SLAVE (though he could end up winning...the whole politically correct competition is stiff here).

BEST PICTURE:

12 YEARS A SLAVE wins due to the content of the story. It will be added to the growing list of Oscar best picture winners that no one will watch again.

Losing will be AMERICAN HUSTLE, CAPTAIN PHILIPS, DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, NEBRASKA, PHILOMENA, GRAVITY, HER and THE WOLF OF WALL STREET.

Look at the list of nominees and notice something. The frequency of a select number of movies included on that list. Then think about the movies that didn't make it at all. IRON MAN 3, MAN OF STEEL, MONSTER UNIVERSITY, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, THE HEAT, THE WOLVERINE, THE CONJURING, LONE SURVIVOR (well this one did actually for sound), PACIFIC RIM, THIS IS THE END, OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN or LAST VEGAS. I'd watch any of these movies any day of the week. The ones nominated? Nope. I guess I'm not politically correct enough to qualify for being an Oscar voter.

Feel free to ridicule me for the mistakes I had in my choices here. I don't live in Hollywood so I can't be 100% correct all the time. :)

WHAT HAPPENED TO JUST BEING CIVIL?

The longer I live the more surprised I am by people. Perhaps I shouldn't be. But I'm not cynical enough to believe that people are inherently bad. I just think there are a portion of people in this world who are down right stupid. Take note, I'm not including myself in that group. Well, at least not most of the time.

Take for instance the law they're considering signing in Arizona. The law would prevent people from being forced to serve people based on their personal beliefs. Currently the way the law is written I have little doubt that it will be brought to the Supreme Court and overturned. There is just something about it that leaves room open for some wild interpretations. But why did this law even have to come about? What happened that made this seem necessary?

I'm guessing here but it seems that the reason was due to a wedding cake. Yes, I'm serious. It started in Colorado where a baker refused to bake a cake for a gay couple who got married out of state. They wanted to celebrate and have a wedding cake but the baker refused to bake them one with two same sex celebrants on top because he said his religion didn't believe in homosexuality. One would think that would be the end of the story, right? Not so in today's world. Rather than take the simple route which would have been to visit a different baker and give him their business, the couple chose to visit the local ACLU office instead and file a lawsuit against the baker for discrimination. This led to a court case where the baker was ordered to supply them with a cake. Oddly enough this falls under the civil rights laws. Apparently the civil rights of the couple were violated but not the rights of the baker.  Odd how that always seems to work out.

With that sort of judgment being handed down I'm guessing that lawmakers in Arizona decided to make sure it didn't happen there. Rather than have the ACLU file a similar lawsuit, lawmakers created this law that makes it legal for people to not service someone based on that person (the first one mentioned) religious beliefs. The bill states that No “individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization” can be sued for declining to bake a wedding cake or professionally photograph a same-sex couple if a “sincerely held” religious belief deters them. That being said the law does NOT use the term gay or same-sex coupe but the way it IS worded would include anyone who qualifies for that those terms. Therein lays the problem. In essence the law as written means that if anyone strikes a business owner as being against his or her religion, they can refuse them service.

Or does it? When we talk about it the initial response is to say that if a business owner doesn't want to serve someone then why should they be force to? That's a knee jerk reaction. Thinking a bit harder you might recall a time when blacks were not allowed to be served in some restaurants or to ride the bus up front. That's the knee jerk reaction from the opposing side. But aren't both of these concepts a bit presumptuous? Aren't they both assuming that the evil business owner will do anything they can to harm someone with this law? No one seems to consider that simple business concepts will play out to either hurt or help that businessman. The baker will lose business as proponents of gay marriage make sure word gets out that he won't make them cakes. I mean why buy anything he/she sells if they feel that way. By the same token those who disagree with gay marriage might buy from him/her for that reason as well. The open market will determine if he/she made the right decision or not.

Those who oppose the law will do everything they can to see it stopped. To date we have seen all sorts of people raising hell about it and complaining about it to the point they are intimidating the governor of the state about what will happen if she signs it into law. Those who are for it are remaining silent. Rather than be judged in the court of opinion they choose to sit back and let it either be voted in or out. Isn't it strange that when it comes to religious beliefs or items that present a conservative perspective the left comes out with guns blazing, yelling from the rooftops about the end of the world...while those on the right calmly sit and watch?

Those who have no religious beliefs will attempt to use the Bible as a way of displaying hypocrisy. Instead they display a lack of understanding of the Bible itself, picking and choosing while accusing those who believe of doing the same thing. One thing I've noticed in these arguments is that the scripture they choose to use is always from the Old Testament. I'm not a Biblical scholar but I do know that many of the tenets in the Old Testament were altered with the coming of Christ in the New Testament. All the stuff about pork, polyester, tattoos and such is in the Old. Find a Biblical scholar and my guess is he can shoot down just about any argument presented using this argument.

On top of everything else how about this for extortion. The NFL, that bastion of decency (you know the group where grown men call each other every name in the book and until one of them gets mad about it they all take it? Or the organization that has numerous cases of drug use among their players going on? That same group who seems to have all sorts of players arrested year after year now for shooting or bashing someone? Yeah those guys) has said that if the law is signed then they will take their ball home. Yes the NFL has said that if the law is signed they will move the 2015 Super Bowl from Arizona to another location. I'm betting that there will be an empty stadium available in Sochi about that time.

So why does the NFL have to be involved in this at all? When did sports suddenly become the playing field to combat political causes? Was it when Bob Costas suddenly in the middle or a program decided to rail against gun use? Speaking of how was that an appropriate topic for a sports program? I mean I could see the discussion on a hunting show but football? How about the NFL just shut up and leave politics to politicians? On the other hand wouldn't fans be ticked off if politicians ran football? Imagine it now as politicians decide that it's not fair for one team to be ahead of the other so they force the winning team to give their points to the losing one. At the end of the Super Bowl both teams win and get trophies and rings. Nah I didn't think you'd like that either.

I guess the one thing this all boils down to in my mind is that people should just be civil with one another. The baker didn't yell at anyone or tell them to go to Hell, he just said his beliefs prevented him from making them a cake. The civil thing to do would have been to say okay fine I'll go to your competitor. One of the biggest problems in this country today seems to be that everyone wants to sue someone over the smallest thing. It ties up the courts and makes no one but lawyers happy in the end. Why don't we instead just stop crying about stupid stuff like this and grow a set. Straighten up and ignore those you disagree with as long as all they're doing is saying no. If violence were involved that would be different. The only violence involved in this case would have been the knife used to cut the cake.

One last point to consider, the only possibility that I can see why this couple decided to force this baker to make them their wedding cake. It has to be one damn fine cake. The kind that no other baker can produce, that will induce gluttony as never before seen on this Earth. Yep, that perfect cake has to be the reason. What else could it be?