Grade 9 Drama class now seems like ages ago. And in it way it has been. Though this may come as a surprise to those who know me, I absolutely despised drama at the time. I had hated it for years ever since Grade 5. Being given a choice between Band and Drama isn't much of a choice. Convinced I could never understand music after nearly failing it in grade 4, I opted for drama. When I got to high school I had 23 different "fun" options to choose from, but for some reason I took the two that I'd been forced to take and come to hate: Drama and French.
An assignment we had to do, and I'll probably never forget it, was to say "This is it" as many different ways, as convincingly as we could. Over the years this phrase has sort of become a motto of mine.
This is it. You only got one life to live. Who cares about the past, and the future may never come. This is it. This is your only chance. This is it. This is all you got. What are you doing for God right this minute? What are you doing to forward the Gospel? What are you doing to love?
This is it.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Jack Layton's Funeral
As I have said in a previous post death is a tragedy. This hoopla about Layton though is just plain rediculous. Sure, the guy had a great character, that's great and he should be commended for that which has been multiple times now.
He advocated in his public ministry the destruction of the family, the murder of babies, the infirm and the elderly. He supported an ailing inefficient healthcare system and strongly empathised heavy public drugging, via phamaceuticals. He supported policies which would have crushed the free market as well as increasing taxes for everyone.
I could see the guy laying in state for a day or two by Layton's has been laying there for a whole week. And the funeral, which is being footed by the taxpayers, is making him seem as if he was some kind of gamechanger. Tommy Douglas was a game changer, Layton is just a politician with good charisma. They haven't even buried him yet. It's morbid! How does Layton even get a State funeral, isn't that reserved for the Govenor General or the Prime Minister?
An average funeral here in Canada costs $10 000. there are many people who can't afford a modest funeral for their loved ones and many more who with no family and friends die alone and are dumped into a cold empty grave. I'd rather the taxpayers support these who are dead, then waste a large amount of taxpayers funds on one single dead guy.
Oh and when I die, I want to be burried in a plain wooden box, not unlike many of the poor in other countries. And I want, if I have been found worthy, a traditional Roman Catholic mass which includes either the recitation of the Rosary for the souls of Purgatory or the recitation of the Divine Mercy Chaplet for the salvation of souls on this Earth now. I also fully expect the Priest to give a homily on sin and possibly abortion. I want no funny business, on the Priest can give a speech. If other people want to talk about me, they can do so after the mass if they want to get together afterwards and have a wake then, just make sure you bury me first.
He advocated in his public ministry the destruction of the family, the murder of babies, the infirm and the elderly. He supported an ailing inefficient healthcare system and strongly empathised heavy public drugging, via phamaceuticals. He supported policies which would have crushed the free market as well as increasing taxes for everyone.
I could see the guy laying in state for a day or two by Layton's has been laying there for a whole week. And the funeral, which is being footed by the taxpayers, is making him seem as if he was some kind of gamechanger. Tommy Douglas was a game changer, Layton is just a politician with good charisma. They haven't even buried him yet. It's morbid! How does Layton even get a State funeral, isn't that reserved for the Govenor General or the Prime Minister?
An average funeral here in Canada costs $10 000. there are many people who can't afford a modest funeral for their loved ones and many more who with no family and friends die alone and are dumped into a cold empty grave. I'd rather the taxpayers support these who are dead, then waste a large amount of taxpayers funds on one single dead guy.
Oh and when I die, I want to be burried in a plain wooden box, not unlike many of the poor in other countries. And I want, if I have been found worthy, a traditional Roman Catholic mass which includes either the recitation of the Rosary for the souls of Purgatory or the recitation of the Divine Mercy Chaplet for the salvation of souls on this Earth now. I also fully expect the Priest to give a homily on sin and possibly abortion. I want no funny business, on the Priest can give a speech. If other people want to talk about me, they can do so after the mass if they want to get together afterwards and have a wake then, just make sure you bury me first.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Casey Anderson and the Death Penalty
I think the world has settled down enough for me to write this post without possibly getting death threats myself. Warning: This following post will probably piss you off but I think after a while you'll realise the sense of it.
Let's beging first of all by saying the Cayley's death was a tragedy. No child be they in the womb, 3 years old or 21 years old should die. Children aren't supposed to die before their parents so it is a tragedy. All loss of life is a tragedy, but there's just something unholy about the death of a child.
While I wasn't glued to the tv screen watching the trial unfold, I did get kept up me up to date as she lived and breathed the trial. Seriously, I officially cannot watch HLN and probably won't for like five years. However, I do understand why the jury decided the way they decided. Had the prosecution focused more on 30 years to life, they would have easily convicted Casey Anthony. Their description of the events was also chunky, and the same story told after the trial by a friend on HLN was far more fluid and believable. If this version was told, I believe the jury also would have convicted.
This is a life we are talking about. Sure, we see ourselves as saints compared to whomever killed Cayley and that can make us feel like we have the power to take another life. We don't however and the jury that was chosen understood why. Casey Anthony was absolutely convicted in the court of public opinion, but without television announcers that tell stories for living stringing various details together for them, the jury gave a very sober analysis. This analysis based on evidence given, was accurate.
The jury I think was right in the sense that they didn't empower themselves with the bloodlust necessary to order someone to die. To do so, would have made them equal with Casey Anthony. When it comes down to it, it's all about one person believing they have the power to take the life of another person - it's believing you have the power to declare another person unworthy of life. This is wrong, very wrong. No mere mortal has this power, even if other mortals say that they do. When it's all said and done, you become the very person you seek to destroy.
According to paragraphs 2266 and 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender. (Luke 23:40-43)
"The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
'If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]"
Let's beging first of all by saying the Cayley's death was a tragedy. No child be they in the womb, 3 years old or 21 years old should die. Children aren't supposed to die before their parents so it is a tragedy. All loss of life is a tragedy, but there's just something unholy about the death of a child.
While I wasn't glued to the tv screen watching the trial unfold, I did get kept up me up to date as she lived and breathed the trial. Seriously, I officially cannot watch HLN and probably won't for like five years. However, I do understand why the jury decided the way they decided. Had the prosecution focused more on 30 years to life, they would have easily convicted Casey Anthony. Their description of the events was also chunky, and the same story told after the trial by a friend on HLN was far more fluid and believable. If this version was told, I believe the jury also would have convicted.
This is a life we are talking about. Sure, we see ourselves as saints compared to whomever killed Cayley and that can make us feel like we have the power to take another life. We don't however and the jury that was chosen understood why. Casey Anthony was absolutely convicted in the court of public opinion, but without television announcers that tell stories for living stringing various details together for them, the jury gave a very sober analysis. This analysis based on evidence given, was accurate.
The jury I think was right in the sense that they didn't empower themselves with the bloodlust necessary to order someone to die. To do so, would have made them equal with Casey Anthony. When it comes down to it, it's all about one person believing they have the power to take the life of another person - it's believing you have the power to declare another person unworthy of life. This is wrong, very wrong. No mere mortal has this power, even if other mortals say that they do. When it's all said and done, you become the very person you seek to destroy.
According to paragraphs 2266 and 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender. (Luke 23:40-43)
"The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
'If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]"
World Youth Day and Money
For those of you who do not know, there were a few wolves decrying World Youth Day in Madrid these past few weeks. What had them howling? That the cost of World Youth Day this year would be 70 million dollars! Now that seems like a lot of money, but guess how much revenue World Youth Day generated? That's right, 230 million dollars! The very first day alone saw 500 000 pilgrims who if they each spent only $20 each, they would have generated 10 million dollars!
"‘For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; to one he gave five talents,to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
"After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. Then the one who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
"And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
"Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master replied, 'You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest.' So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents.
"For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
(Matthew 25:14-30)
"‘For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; to one he gave five talents,to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
"After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. Then the one who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
"And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
"Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master replied, 'You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest.' So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents.
"For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
(Matthew 25:14-30)
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Psychosis, Psychiatry, and Parenting
Before beginning I would like you all to know that I have absolutely no medical training and as such the following opinion is just that an opinion. It is the result of lots of reading and watching of documentaries. Please, do not take this opinion as fact, but rather use it as a place to start your own research so that you also can make informed decisions about your own health. Do not stop taking any medications unless and only under the supervision of a medical doctor such as a general practitioner or naturopathic doctor.
Now, I was watching earlier a documentary about the diagnosis of psychosis in adolescents. Psychosis is a general psychiatric term used to describe percieved abnormal function of the mind such as hearing voices, hallucinations and simply a disconnect from reality. The documentary featured cases of adolescents of which I only watched two since it quickly seemed pointless and a joke of which I shall explain further.
The first example feature a young woman who in her 11th year of school became disconnected from reality. She was incapable of discerning reality from fantasy and had difficulty performing simple tasks such as brushing her hair. According to her mother she was also seeing things which were not there. After three weeks of deterioration, when she could not walk without assistance, she was taking to the emergency room and was promptly refered to a psychiatrist and put on anti- psychotic medication. Her psychiatrist stated that they had no idea what was causing it and that they weren't going to focus on the cause and instead focus on getting rid of the symptoms. Given that she had difficulty walking, that indicates lack of balence so it could be worthwhile for a medical doctor to look into inner ear infections and resultant damage. Of course, such a doctor would never see this.
The second example featured a young male and revealed far more detailed information. He described himself as being hyperactive in grades 3 through 5 and as a result he was diagnosed with ADHD and put on meds. His entire family is overweight in the sense of lack of health as can be seen in skin, hair and eyes. I therefore hypothesize that this kid was probably consuming a large amount of sugar which of course results in supposed hyperactive behavior which was compounded by a likely energised disposition which is perfectly normal for young children. The proper course of action therefore should have been diet. Nonetheless the story does not end there. You see, the ADHD medicine caused depression for which he was prescibed anti-depressents in addition to ADHD medicine. It's sad that he was prescibed an additional drug instead of being weaned off the original drug but alas this is common practice. Now when the dosage of the anti-depresent was raised, he began showing signs of pychosis. Specifically, violent threats and actions towards others. This is actually a common side effect of anti-depresents and interestingly enough, nearly every school shooter in the last few decades has been on anti-depresents which can cause suicidal and homicidal tendencies. Do you think the anti-depresent dosage was lowered or perhaps stopped altogether? You would be wrong. No, instead he was diagnosed as being bipolar and was prescibed two addicitional psychotrophic drugs bringing his total count to four. The drugs are constantly changed however to find "the right balence." It is likely, given the fact that he was put on psychotrophic drugs at such a young age that he likely has brain damage of some sort. If he was weaned off the drugs and treated using diet and exercise I cannot say for certain he could be completely restored to perfect mental health. This is why psychotrophic drugs should not be given to children since it alters their devolopement. It's a sad case that didn't have to happen, but unfortunately is extremely common.
When dealing with psychosis, psychotropic drugs should be a ladt resort. The primary course of action should be to see if there is an organic issue, such as too much sugar in ones diet or an inner ear infection, etc. Media can also affect a child developementally leading them to act out things seen on television expecting identical outcomes. One doesn't truely master the ability to discern between fantasy and reality until the mid to late 20's which is why young adults are responsible for the most deaths, and the most material consumption. They are highly suggestable and the fact that they think they know everything and are invincible only worsens possible outcomes. This is why it's so important for parents to empathize communication at a young age so that in the teen years the teen will be more apt to listen to the parent and comminicate issues. This will make it easier to watch television and movies together and have good discusions about behavior and consequences. And your teens will tell you what they really believe, not just what they know you want to hear so that you'll leave them alone and/or give them more freedom.
Now, I was watching earlier a documentary about the diagnosis of psychosis in adolescents. Psychosis is a general psychiatric term used to describe percieved abnormal function of the mind such as hearing voices, hallucinations and simply a disconnect from reality. The documentary featured cases of adolescents of which I only watched two since it quickly seemed pointless and a joke of which I shall explain further.
The first example feature a young woman who in her 11th year of school became disconnected from reality. She was incapable of discerning reality from fantasy and had difficulty performing simple tasks such as brushing her hair. According to her mother she was also seeing things which were not there. After three weeks of deterioration, when she could not walk without assistance, she was taking to the emergency room and was promptly refered to a psychiatrist and put on anti- psychotic medication. Her psychiatrist stated that they had no idea what was causing it and that they weren't going to focus on the cause and instead focus on getting rid of the symptoms. Given that she had difficulty walking, that indicates lack of balence so it could be worthwhile for a medical doctor to look into inner ear infections and resultant damage. Of course, such a doctor would never see this.
The second example featured a young male and revealed far more detailed information. He described himself as being hyperactive in grades 3 through 5 and as a result he was diagnosed with ADHD and put on meds. His entire family is overweight in the sense of lack of health as can be seen in skin, hair and eyes. I therefore hypothesize that this kid was probably consuming a large amount of sugar which of course results in supposed hyperactive behavior which was compounded by a likely energised disposition which is perfectly normal for young children. The proper course of action therefore should have been diet. Nonetheless the story does not end there. You see, the ADHD medicine caused depression for which he was prescibed anti-depressents in addition to ADHD medicine. It's sad that he was prescibed an additional drug instead of being weaned off the original drug but alas this is common practice. Now when the dosage of the anti-depresent was raised, he began showing signs of pychosis. Specifically, violent threats and actions towards others. This is actually a common side effect of anti-depresents and interestingly enough, nearly every school shooter in the last few decades has been on anti-depresents which can cause suicidal and homicidal tendencies. Do you think the anti-depresent dosage was lowered or perhaps stopped altogether? You would be wrong. No, instead he was diagnosed as being bipolar and was prescibed two addicitional psychotrophic drugs bringing his total count to four. The drugs are constantly changed however to find "the right balence." It is likely, given the fact that he was put on psychotrophic drugs at such a young age that he likely has brain damage of some sort. If he was weaned off the drugs and treated using diet and exercise I cannot say for certain he could be completely restored to perfect mental health. This is why psychotrophic drugs should not be given to children since it alters their devolopement. It's a sad case that didn't have to happen, but unfortunately is extremely common.
When dealing with psychosis, psychotropic drugs should be a ladt resort. The primary course of action should be to see if there is an organic issue, such as too much sugar in ones diet or an inner ear infection, etc. Media can also affect a child developementally leading them to act out things seen on television expecting identical outcomes. One doesn't truely master the ability to discern between fantasy and reality until the mid to late 20's which is why young adults are responsible for the most deaths, and the most material consumption. They are highly suggestable and the fact that they think they know everything and are invincible only worsens possible outcomes. This is why it's so important for parents to empathize communication at a young age so that in the teen years the teen will be more apt to listen to the parent and comminicate issues. This will make it easier to watch television and movies together and have good discusions about behavior and consequences. And your teens will tell you what they really believe, not just what they know you want to hear so that you'll leave them alone and/or give them more freedom.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Scientologists Vs. The London Riots
UPDATE: It seems that another Scientology front group, the Volunteer Ministers, have finally made an appearance in Birmingham. Very small in number, so have been observed cleaning up, but for the most part they are distributing Scientology literature, namely "The Way to Happiness" booklet. More information including picture of said VMs and the materials they are distributing can be gained at the following site: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/church-of-scientology-using-riot-aftermath-to-recruit-members.92109/
For those unawares, Scientology maintains a big presence in London, England. It's the third largest presence after Clearwater, Florida and Los Angeles, California. If you like following the money or paper trail, you will notice a large amount of donations made on behalf of the Church of Scientology London to the Metropolitan Police. In return, various police officials speak at church openings and special functions as well as support Scientology front groups, "The Way to Happiness Foundation, Narconon, and Criminon. Actually the Way to Happiness booklet is pretty good although there are a few sentences that I personally would edit out.
As you may know, Scientologists, tend to pride themselves on having the answers and ability to resolve any problem. So where are they? How come there are no Scientologists on the streets of London applying LRH tech to control the rioters and restore sanity? How come none of the OT8's are using their abilities to make the riots cease to be? These certainly did nothing during the Vancouver riots.
"Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can't produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can't produce good fruit. So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions." (Matthew 7:15-20)
For those unawares, Scientology maintains a big presence in London, England. It's the third largest presence after Clearwater, Florida and Los Angeles, California. If you like following the money or paper trail, you will notice a large amount of donations made on behalf of the Church of Scientology London to the Metropolitan Police. In return, various police officials speak at church openings and special functions as well as support Scientology front groups, "The Way to Happiness Foundation, Narconon, and Criminon. Actually the Way to Happiness booklet is pretty good although there are a few sentences that I personally would edit out.
As you may know, Scientologists, tend to pride themselves on having the answers and ability to resolve any problem. So where are they? How come there are no Scientologists on the streets of London applying LRH tech to control the rioters and restore sanity? How come none of the OT8's are using their abilities to make the riots cease to be? These certainly did nothing during the Vancouver riots.
"Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can't produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can't produce good fruit. So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions." (Matthew 7:15-20)
Would I Strip For A Show?
Just finished watching, "The Glee Project," and it obviously left me thinking. The theme of tonight's episode was sexuality. On the show, there is this sweet kid named Cameron who is of the Evangelical Protestant Christian persuasion. His convictions have been tried these past few weeks given the material that is, "Glee." He was to get into a character and kiss another contestant on the set of the music video the whole cast takes part in each week . He was supposed to kiss her but refused. Personally, I don't think his decision affected his performance but the powers that be of course, disagreed.
As an actor, I probably would have done the exact same thing. At this point in time, it's not something I feel comfortable with and I doubt that would change anytime soon. Personally, a kiss is not just a kiss even if one is only pretending. Actually, pretend kisses look silly and it's actually better for the kiss to be real for that makes it all the more believeable. Anyways, a kiss on the lips is something sacred and special for me in part because I've never been kissed and in part because of my own religious convictions. These convictions aren't necessarily in line with the teachings of the Church - the Catholic Church is in no way a puritan institution. As an actor, I would accept a kiss on the neck, cheeks, chin, forehead and nose - just not the lips.
As a director however, I see things differently. A kiss, played just right can be absolutely breathtaking for the audience to share in. I'm not one to randomly spread kissing and making out throughout a movie (etc.) because I'm too lazy to really develope the characters and their intricate relationships. How I would use sexuality is similar to James Cameron's use of it in Titanic and it's why to this day we're convinced Kate Winslet and Leonardo diCaprio are destined to be together because it was just that believeable. Titanic was will written, well casted, and well directed amongst so many other things.
So, would I strip for a show? That depends. I would submit more to a limited strip than a full on get naked in under 30 seconds strip. As an actor, I can't seperate my sexuality well from who I am which would consequently limit my endeavers. In this sence, a limited strip involves taking off the top layer of clothing but doesn't actually reveal anything. As a director, I'd venture a little farther to undue and commence the slidding off of pants and begin taking off the rest of the top layers although actually revealing the bra would be solely up to the actress herself. I'd be making several cuts and edits to this scene as a whole so when you watched it you would know what is going on but most of it is actually left to the imagination.
What about sex? As an actor, you'd only see the morning after and I'd be fully covered by the blankets. What you wouldn't see is that I'd be basically fully clothed underneath. As a director, I'd be basically the same way though the actors can wear bathing suits if they want instead - whatever they're comfortable with. Sex scenes barely if ever add to the plot, character development, etc. so it's pointless to show a sex scene in a movie or television show. Although again, the scene in the car and even Rose being drawn like a French girl is perfectly acceptable and does indeed add to everything that matters. It was done while leaving the dignity of both persons intact although the circumstances are certainly immoral in nature.
As an actor, I probably would have done the exact same thing. At this point in time, it's not something I feel comfortable with and I doubt that would change anytime soon. Personally, a kiss is not just a kiss even if one is only pretending. Actually, pretend kisses look silly and it's actually better for the kiss to be real for that makes it all the more believeable. Anyways, a kiss on the lips is something sacred and special for me in part because I've never been kissed and in part because of my own religious convictions. These convictions aren't necessarily in line with the teachings of the Church - the Catholic Church is in no way a puritan institution. As an actor, I would accept a kiss on the neck, cheeks, chin, forehead and nose - just not the lips.
As a director however, I see things differently. A kiss, played just right can be absolutely breathtaking for the audience to share in. I'm not one to randomly spread kissing and making out throughout a movie (etc.) because I'm too lazy to really develope the characters and their intricate relationships. How I would use sexuality is similar to James Cameron's use of it in Titanic and it's why to this day we're convinced Kate Winslet and Leonardo diCaprio are destined to be together because it was just that believeable. Titanic was will written, well casted, and well directed amongst so many other things.
So, would I strip for a show? That depends. I would submit more to a limited strip than a full on get naked in under 30 seconds strip. As an actor, I can't seperate my sexuality well from who I am which would consequently limit my endeavers. In this sence, a limited strip involves taking off the top layer of clothing but doesn't actually reveal anything. As a director, I'd venture a little farther to undue and commence the slidding off of pants and begin taking off the rest of the top layers although actually revealing the bra would be solely up to the actress herself. I'd be making several cuts and edits to this scene as a whole so when you watched it you would know what is going on but most of it is actually left to the imagination.
What about sex? As an actor, you'd only see the morning after and I'd be fully covered by the blankets. What you wouldn't see is that I'd be basically fully clothed underneath. As a director, I'd be basically the same way though the actors can wear bathing suits if they want instead - whatever they're comfortable with. Sex scenes barely if ever add to the plot, character development, etc. so it's pointless to show a sex scene in a movie or television show. Although again, the scene in the car and even Rose being drawn like a French girl is perfectly acceptable and does indeed add to everything that matters. It was done while leaving the dignity of both persons intact although the circumstances are certainly immoral in nature.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Debt Deal Reached: Obama Sad
I was talking with my parents about the debt just a few days ago. Dad said that both sides were just putting on a show so that when the election goes into full swing they could all go back to their constituents and say, "See, I tried my best to get the deal that you wanted. Re-Elect me and I'll make it happen for sure." After sitting with that for a few days, I've come to the conclusion that Dad is probably right.
The debt deal has been reached, well, kind of. All the nitty gritty cuts and increases will be determined by congressional hearing in November. The Tea Party candidates don't like this deal because of tax increases and not enough cuts. The Socialist sect of the Democrats, of which Obama is a member of, are dissapointed that there will be cuts to entitlement programs and that the rich aren't going to be taxed enough.
On a side note, even if Obama taxed all of the rich folks 100% he still wouldn't raise a significant amount to make an impact on the debt. At the same time, Tea Partiers, if you slashed entitlement programs down to a mininum and either maintained or decreased current tax breaks to corporations and wealthy persons, you too would also barely make an impact on the debt.
A very important note to make is the phantom tax base. Phantom tax base? Yes, the children that have been aborted since Roe vs. Wade and the children they would be having right now since many of them would be at child bearing age. That's a whole chunk of missing tax payers who aren't buying houses, cars and at the same time aren't contributing to the work force. This expose does a very good job at explaining why the US government is missing out on a vital amount of money which if these people were allowed to live, you probably wouldn't even be in a debt crisis right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyvgIM7E9Do.
The markets open in the US today, and some say the US has already defaulted anyways. The fact remains, huge changes have to be made and not just by deciding how much to tax and what to cut.
The debt deal has been reached, well, kind of. All the nitty gritty cuts and increases will be determined by congressional hearing in November. The Tea Party candidates don't like this deal because of tax increases and not enough cuts. The Socialist sect of the Democrats, of which Obama is a member of, are dissapointed that there will be cuts to entitlement programs and that the rich aren't going to be taxed enough.
On a side note, even if Obama taxed all of the rich folks 100% he still wouldn't raise a significant amount to make an impact on the debt. At the same time, Tea Partiers, if you slashed entitlement programs down to a mininum and either maintained or decreased current tax breaks to corporations and wealthy persons, you too would also barely make an impact on the debt.
A very important note to make is the phantom tax base. Phantom tax base? Yes, the children that have been aborted since Roe vs. Wade and the children they would be having right now since many of them would be at child bearing age. That's a whole chunk of missing tax payers who aren't buying houses, cars and at the same time aren't contributing to the work force. This expose does a very good job at explaining why the US government is missing out on a vital amount of money which if these people were allowed to live, you probably wouldn't even be in a debt crisis right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyvgIM7E9Do.
The markets open in the US today, and some say the US has already defaulted anyways. The fact remains, huge changes have to be made and not just by deciding how much to tax and what to cut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)