American Age

Hundreds of millions would relocate…

Jon-Paul — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:25:53 +0000

Have you ever seriously feared falling asleep while driving? We often wondered how many people behind-the-steering wheel ever really woke up before the collision. Think about it – if one is asleep with a motorized vehicle underneath them traveling at 60 miles per hour – and smack into another motorist head-on or a tree, or a fence for that matter – do you think the person would wake up?

That is precisely how we feel about the grotesque negligence that has happened with our immigration services. Better put, it’s like Mach II with hair on fire without a parachute! Most have probably seen this little article from the AP but we felt that it is a good precursor to what may be in store.

Some 700 million people worldwide, or more than all the adults of North and South America combined, think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence and want to permanently move to another country, a poll showed Tuesday.

Residents of sub-Saharan African countries were the most likely to want to move abroad permanently, the polls conducted in 135 countries between 2007 and this year by Gallup showed.

On average, 38 percent of the adult population in sub-Saharan Africa, or around 165 million people, said they would up stakes and head for another country if they had the chance.

The most popular destination was the United States, where nearly a quarter of the 700 million — around 165 million people — said they would like to settle.

In joint second were Britain, Canada and France, each being named as the preferred destination of around 45 million people.

Thirty-five million said they would go to Spain, 30 million to Saudi Arabia, and 25 million each to Australia or Germany.

The least likely to want to emigrate were Asians — only one in 10 Asian adults said they would move to another country.

Nearly 260,000 people aged 15 years and older were surveyed, either by phone or face-to-face, for the poll, which has a margin of error of around five percent.

Trying to change America

Jon-Paul — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:51:56 +0000

Illegal aliens with drivers' licenses?

We are positive that one could go on for hours just examining how much those people who are in “high-brow” positions receive the sweetest – of sweetheart deals. Just for brevity’s sake we mention just a few: Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and his non-disclosure of properties owned and huge amounts of unpaid taxes; with as much whining per every media outlet, how is it that Speaker Nan’ Pelosi (D-CA) is still flying around in her very own airline fleet courtesy of the United States Air Force ergo, us and you; Treasury secretary Geithner get his back taxes paid yet? Even the POTUS was the recipient of a sweetheart mortgage, amount other pleasantries.

But this article is not about those unscrupulous people who like beggars continue to thrust their hands forward and say, “More, more, and more.” This article is about how having some cash money will most assuredly get certain things accomplished by even the worst of the worst.

How on earth anyone in their right mind could argue for illegal aliens to have drivers’ licenses is simply beyond us. Allow us to demonstrate what we’re talking about. This is from the National Council of La Raza:

“NCLR believes that a state-issued driver’s license should be reliable proof of an individual’s identity and proof of authorization to drive a motor vehicle; it should not be tied to an individual’s immigration status. There are legitimate and sound avenues for individuals to prove identity which would allow state Departments of Motor Vehicles to fulfill their mission of ensuring safe roads without creating new licensing requirements that would make the driver’s license a de facto proof of legal residency in the United States.

Therefore we ask, what’s up with that posture? First, La Raza states that there is no distinction between who is here legally or illegally; moreover, they advocate that everyone in the United States should be allowed to get a drivers license.

Most assuredly – most of us who grew up in this country have a general regard for what is referred to as ‘the Rule of Law.’ We also think the notion could be argued that one of the reasons why America has prospered is because of that very ideal – Rule of Law. It certainly has assisted most in civil rights; moreover, the dignity of life. Will continue next time…

Wannabe celebrities…

Jon-Paul — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:32:28 +0000

We know that there are some that will read this and probably go on about – “oh what do these people know” or something along the lines of “so why do they care..?” Fact of the matter is that everyone – especially celebrities or even those quasi-celebs or just run of the mill regular folks like us here at American Age – like to be acknowledged once in a while.

Wannabe celebrities, Hollywood hounds, or basically anyone in the entertainment business should quickly come to realize that you are a walking and talking advertisement. And we all know about advertising right? If done properly, it can be the best thing to happen to anyone; however, the flip side to that is of course the opposite effect: it can work against a person worse than any tabloid could imagine.

Oh yeah! Hell yes…there are those of us who have done all-nighter’s with David ‘Dave’ Letterman and a lot more that need not be mentioned here; and there are those who have literally held Kate Hudson at 3 months old! And then again when one only reflects on those meetings with Ronnie ‘Ron’ Howard, Rob ‘Meathead’ Reiner, during the merging of mega-thoughts that ended up being Cocoon or My Girl and at their request we add.

But by a long shot it’s far better off having met a person before they were the Material Girl, as in Madonna’s case (an absolute love! And nice!) or those who have won OSCARS — Goldie Hahn, Mel Gibson, Rod Steiger, and yes…Jack #2 Lakers’ Fan Nicholson just to name a couple. But isn’t the entire name dropping game of bunch of bull squat?

Why even make an attempt to understand it? I know what that life is like! I know being hounded 24/7, I know the uncouth people who’d just as soon interrupt your dining pleasure to “…just thought I’d pop-by for an autograph…you don’t mind do you..?” What on earth is one supposed to do? Yeah, get the heck away from me!

Sad thing these days is that many, many celebs have that kind of attitude – and quite openly I find it ridiculous. Somewhere in their self-absorbed world they forget to recognize other folks and what might be good for them. I always think of ol’ Abraham Maslow and his ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ that makes so much sense. The sad issue here folks are that a person can be literally annihilated for saying something as rational as “I believe that marriage involves a man and women…” then get beat to death by Perez Hilton (that’s original!) some kind of quasi-judge in a beauty pageant.

Get a twitter account and you’ll quickly see the ‘have’s’ from the ‘have not’s’. Or try Facebook if you’d like, it doesn’t get much better. In fact, most celebs that use these ’social media’ websites are really about promoting something they are involved with! So and so has a new single coming out… so and so just started university in America…then you’ve got ones who have been on a series…that seem to get pleasure out of ignoring someone else.

Here’s all we’d like to say: Why is it that so many of these “people” seem to think that animals, trees, travesties at the hands of warlords, and every other special “charity” cause is so damned important when there are what, something like 30 million people who pay to see their movies, films, television shows, who need health care right in front of their very eyes. What sense does it make to give “Charity” to supermarket produce and not for those who live in their own neighborhoods? Rant over!

Appeal filed in photographers case by Alliance Defense

Jon-Paul — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:24:51 +0000

A Clear Travesty

As usual we were going about our business soaring through various and sundry informative websites and blogs when S-L-A-P! It feels as though someone has just blazed a flat, wet-hand across your face on a freezing cold winter’s day. Know the feeling?

In this particular matter we were doing our level best to research where the Elaine Huguenin case sits as far as appeals, and your general special interest trying to watch out for one of the gravest travesties of the 21st century. For those who don’t recall a quick, very quick refresher: (Also, please click here.)

A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony because of her religious beliefs violated New Mexico discrimination law, a human rights panel ruled. Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission in 2006, contending that Albuquerque photographer Elaine Huguenin told her she photographed only traditional marriages. Huguenin and her husband, Jon, own Elane Photography.

Shortly thereafter Elaine and Jon Huguenin were being sued by Vanessa Willock in front of the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for discrimination based on ’sexual orientation.’ What? Yep that’s right; it’s ugly, it’s wrong, it’s immoral, lacks any kind of integrity and is void of any humane dignity.

During our search we went back over the particulars and much to our amazement we ran across this quote below by the Alliance Defense Fund’s Senior Counsel, Kevin Theriot, that simply stuck out so conspicuously — “…thoughts, beliefs, and emotions they have that are not considered to be ‘politically correct.’” (Must read so click here.)

“All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice,” ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot explains. “So-called ‘hate crime’ laws actually serve only one purpose: The criminalization of citizens based on whatever thoughts, beliefs, and emotions they have that are not considered to be ‘politically correct.’ No one should fall for the idea that this bill does anything to bring about greater justice for Americans.”

As mentioned in previous writings – please see the tab marked Political Correctness on the Home page of The Thinker – especially where linguists, academians, and other scholars believe that the quickest way to defragment or disrupt and change a society is by changing its language which is believed is the major culprit behind being politically correct. Just a few examples: “Undocumented worker,” a “Blank – American” (hyphenated) and “handicapped to disabled” for a few examples.

Just for the record we like to inform everyone who reads this article or anything whatsoever about this case (Willock v. Elane Photography) that of the first part: Same-sex marriage or commitment ceremonies or civil unions — anything to do with the union of same-sex partners is illegal in New Mexico. Notice how decietful and scheming Willock was when she went to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission to bring suit. We are of the opinion that if an ‘act’ is deemed illegal in a state then anything to do with that act would likewise be illegal.

Law Enforcement working together…

Jon-Paul — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:14:50 +0000

Working together

Have we entered into a time where — finally – the various law enforcement agencies have begun to work together? What a concept! Now what will Hollyweird writers have to write about? For too long its major mess-ups because the FBI didn’t want anyone in their jurisdiction, while the local police and sheriffs’ departments who’d worked the crimes wanted some credit and there’s nothing wrong with that. Please everyone who has ears listen! With the recent apprehension and foiled terrorist attacks in New York, Colorado, and Canada that we know about – where the CIA worked with the ATF who worked with ICE who worked with the FBI who worked with the NYPD and other agencies – nothing shy of marvelous.

However we want to espouse that at a time when ALL the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies are working together for the first time wouldn’t you know it, some 500 special interest groups are raising Cain for some violation of some illegal immigrants rights albeit they are here illegally.

As such, we at American Age feel it is incumbent upon us to get the word out about all matters concerning immigration reform. Therefore, in our steadfast heart of hearts, we believe beyond question that there are hundreds; if not thousands of special interest/advocacy groups that have already set in motion their own ‘version’ of what immigration reform will look like. And folks as far as we’re concerned we don’t like the looks of it; moreover, we dislike and disrespect the notion that terms and conditions of illegal immigration will be dictated to us.

From the Los Angeles Times:

500 groups urge Obama to halt immigration police program

A letter to the president says local enforcement of federal immigration laws has led to racial profiling and civil rights violations.

A coalition of advocacy groups sent a letter to President Obama last week demanding that the administration end a program that allows local police to enforce federal immigration law.

The program, known as 287(g), deputizes police to turn over suspects or criminals to immigration authorities for possible deportation. Immigrant rights groups said the program has led to civil rights violations and racial profiling.

“Racial profiling and other civil rights abuses by the local law enforcement agencies that have sought out 287(g) powers have compromised public safety, while doing nothing to solve the immigration crisis,” the letter states. “The program has worked counter to community policing goals by eroding the trust and cooperation of immigrant communities and diverted already reduced law enforcement resources from their core mission.”

Who, what, where, why, and how do these advocacy groups – who receive funding from the U.S. government – think they are insofar as demanding things? Moreover, in our humble opinion one of the greatest difficulties facing a uniform cross-agency program – involving local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies – is that there are restrictions that any one of these agencies can’t do in order to perform to the best of their abilities and with each other.

We say nonsense to this garbage! Furthermore, all of these special interest groups should be well-advised that there are consequences for their actions – if and only if we have the government that will enforce our Nation’s “Manner of Laws.” (Further reading click here.)

Tagged: Bull-Squat, Controversy, Illegal Immigration, Lunacy, Politics, Special Interest Groups, What Next

Celebs v Stars v Fame #quatre

Jon-Paul — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:30:14 +0000

Call it whatever you will, but America has a real problem with ‘celebrity-hood.’ Seriously when one goes grocery shopping normally the first item they see is something about a wannabe celebrity on any one of the likes of The National Enquirer, Star Magazine, and the lot of them. Well then after traversing the grocery store and being inundated with endorsement after endorsement for just about all products (especially the hygiene aisle) then we proceed to the check-out where one gets hit with everything from People Magazine, UsWeekly, Soap Digest, just to name a few.

Just this evening before going to print we happened upon this website, ironically on Shine by Yahoo! Actually it was spotted on Yahoo!’s homepage and we just followed the link until we reached our target. Please anyone or everyone, if you have a question about how some celebrities who are black then suddenly turn white, or how a pregnancy is handled by the main-stream media this is a must read! So click here.

We believe it has something to do with say…vanity? Oh no! If you don’t believe us, read it from a true bonafide star, who is also famous, also a mother and wife and auntie who tells it like it is:

On the frenzy surrounding young celebrities:

“I think it’s just grotesque. It’s like a circus sideshow. I don’t know why anybody would even want to go into show business these days, with all of the different magazines and shows. It just wouldn’t be worth it. And it’s too fast. Before, you could build a career over years and many movies. Now it’s like you do one good movie and they throw a ton of money at you and a ton of attention at you. You’re being constructed outside of yourself before you even know who you are, and what you are, and how you want to do it, and why you want to do it.” (Once again, this is what we refer to as a manufactured celebrity.)

On if her kids wanted to get into acting:

“I would call Natalie Portman’s mother. Natalie is such a good actress, but she seems like such a sensible person. I asked her about it one day when we were doing ‘Closer,’ and she said she only worked with people that her parents trusted, and she only worked when it didn’t impact her school. No one does it that way, but they did it, so it can be done. I hope I don’t face that, though, because I think kids should be kids and childhood should be filled with…you know that smell, when your kids come in and they smell like dirt and sweat and sunshine? That’s what I hope for my kids.” (Further reading click here.)

I know you’re probably thinking something like, ‘oh yeah she says that after the Oscar and the $ 20 million per movie’; however, we do have it with the best of all sources that Ms. Julia Roberts is unequivocally telling the truth.

In fact she addresses the issue that concerns us most about wannabe celebrities: It’s what we refer to as the ‘what if’ syndrome, meaning of course, what if a person is successful for their body, one film, or one hit record, and then they’re never heard from again? Are they a celebrity?

Tagged: Celebrities, Controversy, Films, Lunacy

Celebrity v. Stardom v. Fame, trois

Jon-Paul — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:10:59 +0000

What is a Celebrity?

We originally thought that this small series would only be three parts; however, much to our pleasure and concern, we find that it is going to be just a bit more that what we initially planned. In one way it’s a good thing; yet, on the other hand it’s troubling.

We know, we know…we promised to move on to fame and its qualifications, categories, and degrees. Although we want too we find that now is not the appropriate time insofar as America’s fixation with celebrities or better yet, people who have appeared in film, television, or other mediums of recognition is still too under developed for us to move on with good conscience.

In fact we believe that it indeed may be the industry that creates the ‘celeb’ rather than anything the person may have done. We, as you know, have written rather extensively on the notion of “manufactured celebrity” and we believe that the marketing machines in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago as well as the representative agencies may be the greatest significant factor in how a person achieves ‘celeb status.’

Most real, and we mean r-e-a-l celebrities are those folks who have trained whilst most of the time they’ve multi-crossed trained to become – or develop the special skills they possess. We have examples that illustrate this very easily. Has anyone ever noticed how a British actor can influence a particular scene – almost to the point of manipulation with just their eyes – almost within the realm of being off camera?

British actors or most of them are staged trained far before ever considering a career in film or television. We mean seriously, watch a British actor, even an Australian actor whilst on-screen; it is definitely their presence that is so powerful. Why do you think Gary Oldman was chosen to play Sirius Black in the Harry Potter series? Just look at Hugh Jackman as ‘Logan’ or ‘Wolverine’ in the X-Men franchise; or about the late Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight?

Our reference is not that Brit’s or Aussie’s are any better than are Americans. We do however believe that if an American performer wants to rise to the top of their field; albeit, film, television, music, or otherwise then one will have to train in all aspects of their given choice. It was a while back that I read An Actor Prepares by Stanislavski, who most refer to as ‘the father of modern theater’ and definitely the author and perfector of the process known as ‘Method Acting.’ In An Actor Prepares the author clearly establishes that fencing, dancing, and emotional memory are some of the most important skills a good actor should acquire.

As far as music is concerned, as well as art, these disciplines need practice, training, mentoring, and then more practicing. All of the great musicians throughout time have paid their dues so to speak insofar as one does not pick up an instrument and become a celebrity. Even here there are exceptions such as the Partridge Family, the Monkees, or just about anyone seen on television that has attained ‘celebrity status’ without even a hit record.

Several of us here at American Age are syndicated writers – some have attained celeb status; others, would just as soon be the person with the notepad or tape recorder. And then some of us have very well-known family members and/or famous great grandparents – but does any of that make us a celebrity? No.

American people or even those who live in America have a fixation with wannabe stars, celebrities—if even for a minute, or just about anyone famous. Why do you suppose that is? And here is one fact that we will definitely be addressing much sooner than later…

It seems that a whole host of “celebrities” now have Twitter accounts. Why? Most likely to keep their flame from extinguishing; moreover, these folks will write messages for themselves and their friends (in show business) to add them as or too “follow” them. Is there like a status that goes along with how many people ‘follow’ you? Who knows? What we – every writer on staff here – have asked a question (politely, professionally, and respectfully) and for most of us, none of the “celebs” has ever offered so much as a ‘Hello’ or a legitimate answer to our questions. So what’s up with that? Go figure! It’s just bad form. . .

Tagged: Celebrities, Entertainment, Films, Lunacy

Celebrity v. Stardom v. Fame, duex

Jon-Paul — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:13:49 +0000

What is celebrity status? What is fame?

Knowing that the word celebrity is related to celebration, how then do we define what a celebrity is? Here are some simple questions to think about first: Does a celebrity have to be a person or a member of the human race? Are celebrities famous? Not all of course, although they may think otherwise. Yet, this does bring a completely different dimension to our expose.

If so that would be the ‘fame’ side, therefore, we must make a distinction between being a celebrity and being a famous person. Moreover, does a celebrity or even a famous person need to possess honorable attributes?

Okay then…where we left off last night was in the notion that to have celebrity status one should have attained a degree of notoriety and should be looked upon with a favorable attitude or reputation in the community.

Okay…okay let’s say that celebrities have to be human and their ‘claim to status’ has to be a quality of being widely honored and acclaimed, or in other words, a person with a favorable public reputation. And on we go. Obviously what we are trying to establish is that celebrities are not people who enjoyed the accoutrements that go along with ‘celebrity-dom’ such as say, Charles Manson or Machine-gun Kelly who gained fame through murder and crime.

So at American Age, we ask, “if a person makes a sex tape that is widely viewed or even someone of ’socialite’ status are these people celebrities just because they’re born with public names, or was nicknamed “the Obama girl,” or even made a cell phone video tape?” We unanimously agree “No” on that notion. Subsequently, that led us to the notion of being famous. Ironically when fame is defined it states that a person must have a favorable public reputation for starters and then goes on to establish the various issues that ‘claim fame.’

Summarizing and being very general it seems as though contrary to what people may think a celebrity is, albeit by paparazzi, tabloids, or magazine stories, a real qualifier of ‘celebrity status’ is being well-known and looked upon with a good reputation. Sounds good to us.

Just a few closing comments before leaving ‘celebrity-dom’ and moving on to fame — which we believe is unrelated to celebrity status insofar as there appears to be a smaller number of famous people than celebrities. Therefore, could we conclude that celebrity status may be a fleeting moment or even longer but that fame is all together a different issue? Interesting idea; however, we see it like this: a famous person can be a celebrity, but need not be a celebrity to be famous; on the other hand, all celebrities aren’t famous and that celebrity-dom may last for 15 minutes or longer.

In most cases fame manifests itself in such categories as immortal, luminary, guiding, and of notable worth by being basically great at what a person does such as a writer (“Shakespeare is one of the immortals”) or luminary and guiding (an inspiration to others), and/or a person whose actions and opinions strongly influence the course of events) being very notable.

Humm, this doesn’t factor in the likes of Imelda Marcos, who suppressed millions of Filipinos, or Al Capone who is immortalized in organized crime, seriously, even Jack the Ripper has enduring fame. Therefore, it appears as though one need not be of great moral character to achieve fame. However, many will argue that those given to murder, graft, corruption, and robbery are not necessarily famous. What do you think?

More tomorrow. . .

Celebrity v. Stardom v. Fame

Jon-Paul — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:19:09 +0000

Still photo from on-set of WKRP

One of the assets behind American Age is just about anything “Americana” — articles, essay’s, poems, opinions, or editorials but is not limited to all things American. Therefore, when asking a person what is American or Americana, the answers range just about off the blotter!

However we believe that if we were to take a survey on what is the most Americana of America, we suggest that people would most likely say, “Hollywood” or movies, films, Beverly Hills, and of course, those actors, actresses, musicians, and just about anyone associated with show business would assuredly come to mind. So when you think of something uniquely American, what do you think of – celebrity, stardom, or something else?

Ah-ha! Although these issues dominate the magazine industry, tabloid newspapers, television, radio, and certainly the blogosphere and for those we’ve asked there remains – timidity and trepidation – with most having a difficult problem even defining the differences between these words – fame, celebrity, and stardom within the context of Americana.

I once watched Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon of The Tonight Show literally go on about this very topic for days, weeks, even years. Segue our understanding of what these identifiers are and furthermore, we ask our readers to share with us their opinions as well, especially people who find themselves in any one particular category. So off we go. . .

If one has been to this site previously then you would already know our qualifiers for celebrity status. If one hasn’t been to our site before then please see this article here, and here, and then again click here.

How then do we define what a celebrity is? Here are some simple questions to think about first: Does a celebrity have to be a person or a member of the human race? Are celebrities famous? If so that would be the ‘fame’ side, therefore, we must make a distinction between being a celebrity and being a famous person. Moreover, does a celebrity or even a famous person need to possess honorable attributes?

I can clearly remember Johnny Carson and sidekick, Ed McMahon, dueling over: “…well, Mr. Ed was a celebrity, as was Seabiscuit, Arnold, Babe, Lassie, Kermit, Miss Piggy, and Burt and Ernie, and these celebrities weren’t human…some of them were puppets or even animated…like say, oh Mickey Mouse.” Carson was adamant…well let’s say that a celebrity is a ‘person of notoriety.’ Hmm, that hardly worked either – “how did the person or thing achieve notoriety,” Ed would say laughingly.

More coming tomorrow…

“No Guts, No Glory”

Jon-Paul — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:15:32 +0000

Mexican, Argentine, USA flags and photos of other leaders

As far as immigration – legally into the country as well as immigration – illegally into the United States of America we are of the opinion that nothing and we mean absolutely nothing could get as fouled up as this process is without collusion, special interest money, and believe it or not…planning.

Try spending an hour let alone a weekend in the Unites States Code Title 8 which is the basic Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (revised of course) or even daily for a year or more and one can not possibly come up with a different conclusion.

It is time for the “inside the Beltway Bandits” especially the current administration and unfortunately for those given to a ‘normal disposition’ the Congress of elected officials who would much rather sell America out for a buck or two than to do the right thing.

Let’s face it – just as General McChrystal originally had the undaunted support of President Obama – who now only pleads for that ‘undaunted support’ or even a phone call from this so-called president to win a war, rid the world of several factions of terrorist organizations and this president would rather fly to Copenhagen like a used car salesman pushing to the 2016 Olympic games for his home town – Chicago, and notice please that not once did he mention America.

Let’s also face the reality of our current immigration system – “What system” you ask – exactly our point. What did any average citizen of this nation have to do with the current lack of appropriate resources, enough loopholes in immigration law to never have to deport anyone whose here illegally, or the recent changes in the ‘asylum’ definitions that make it easier to illegally gain access to permanent resident status?

Sorry for the long windedness of the previous comment – again, only less verbiage. What did you or I do that warranted 20 million illegal aliens into the country? The answer friends are absolutely nothing. But you can bet your last dollar that IF anything gets done to rectify this situation we’re going to flip the bill.

Finally for now, what are the people on Capital Hill so afraid of? If one needs to follow a set guide of procedures to gain entry into the Unites States what are they afraid of by doing the right thing and sending illegals back to where they came from?

There is no dishonor in doing the right thing. If we have entered into a world of “no borders” and every one who desires can come and go as they please, why have a military? What cause is there for national defense when there is no nation to defend?