People of all colors...

On a recent visit to Chicago, i was reminded of the Trump campaign... how could one not be? The brightest thing on the Chicago river at night is the gigantic "TRUMP" emblazoned on the side of the river front Trump building.

When Mr. Trump stated that all Muslims should be temporarily banned from entering the United States -- and the attendees of his speech erupted in applause and cheers -- just who is the "Muslims" in their collected thoughts? Is this "Muslim" all of a single dress, skin color, ethnicity, and nationality? Could it be that the Trump supporting America has become so isolated from the world at large to think that Islam is but a small isolated religion centering upon the Middle East? Because if that is not the case, how is it going to work?

Is it going to be based on a customs form one fills out on the inbound vehicle? "Religion, please select one"? Because paper forms with an official stamp obligates honest answers and the person filling it out can not but tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Except when meats and fruits or amount of incoming currency is involved?

Or will it be a more direct test of faith? Perhaps before every customs check kiosk, a plate of non-halal meats will be presented and all persons entering these United States must demonstrate consumption of such meats.

Perhaps the Trump United States would combine his gun-ho declaration of bringing back water boarding and his promise of a religion based ban by water boarding everyone coming in to the country until they declare their answer to the question of "You are a Muslim aren't you?!" to the satisfaction of "yes i am, no please stop!" Added bonus, it would be cheaper than building the wall to bar illegal immigrants also... provided you recycle the water, after all, parts of the United States is experiencing severe drought.

What of the US resident "Muslims"? How will they be identified as the enter and exit the US? Certainly they could not be treated like your run of the mill potential immigrants? Perhaps a red crescent could be displayed on the clothing of all US resident "Muslims" for the ease of identification?

i don't know. i can't but wonder. i also don't know what struggle Trump went through to bring him to such a mindset. Is this just what happens to a man so long in a career to construct living space that all he see is "within" and "without"?

Is this also why those who applauded and cheered him did so? Because seeing "us" versus "them" is so much easier than seeing the complexity of the world and attempting to fathom the consequences of actions?

Guns rights... open carry... gun owners as effectors public safety...

i like guns, i enjoy shooting guns, i respect the history of the gun as works of craft, works of art, and a tool to an end... i enjoy the right to own a gun though i do not own one (though i know the ins and outs of gun safety, i simply do not have the time to maintain my competence with a gun to the degree where i feel comfortable having it around other people)... i appreciate the right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a militia... but i do not agree with the idea of open carry or guns in public. i feel this way for 2 very simple reasons.

1) Unintentional civilian casualties occurs still, even though our armed forces and law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard of fire discipline and competence than any given civilian gun owner.

2) There is nothing that will visually identify a shooter as a "good person with a gun" versus a "bad person with a gun"... and... see 1)

i understand that those who wants to open carry for safety feels that they can do more good than harm... and i appreciate their civic minded desire to do good... but, can they, with no doubt in their hearts and on their minds, tell me that they will only shoot at and harm the "bad person with a gun"?

No matter the intention behind the firing of the shot (to borrow a phrase from the NRA "guns don't kill people"), the person who's finger is on the trigger is ultimately for the result of the shot(s) they direct down field.

After all, while it is easier to identify a shooter when they are the only person in the crowd with a weapon, can you identify the "active shooter"/"bad person with a gun" in a crowd if more than one person has a gun?

Big Trouble in Little China

"You know what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like this?"

Well, if i were Jack Burton (Kurt Russell), i'd say "grab a tub of pop corn, a tall beverage of your choice, sit back, relax, and enjoy the show."

Yes, "Big Trouble in Little China" has got to be one of my all time favorite movies. The swaggering Jack Burton (Kurt Russell at his John Wayne best), the wide eyed Gracie Law (a young Kim Cattrall at her pre "Sex and the City" best) struck up a light and easy partnership in this John Carpenter romp through the depth of "San Francisco Chinatown".

At the heart of the story is a story about what happens when Jack Burton accompanies his friend Wang (Dennis Dun) to the airport to pick up the love of Wang's life, Miao Yin. Add a dash of a Chinatown sex trafficking gang (the dangerously named Lords of Death), a dollop of societal war between the Wing Kong and the Chang Sing, a pinch of mistaken kidnapping gone wrong, a neigh immortal demon sorcerer named David Lo-Pan (the ever entertaining and memorable James Hong) seeking to become flesh once more, three supernatural warriors who's posing strikes fear into the hearts of men but who's martial arts leaves something to be desired in the final reckoning, and a Chinatown sorcerer named Egg Shen (the late great Victor Wong) who is also the proprietor of the famous Egg Foo Yung Chinatown Tour tour bus, and you have this rollicking cult-classic from 1986.

The dialogue is camp at its ultimate best. Close your eyes and you might conjure up the image of John Wayne every time Jack Burton swaggers through his lines. The martial art fights are hilarious attempts to capture Hong Kong kung fu movies. The story is held together on gossamer strands but the enthusiasm of the acting and movie making overcomes.

The greatest enjoyment for me is watching Kurt Russell as Jack Burton, the big talking loud mouth who is not afraid of anything in his speech making but cautious and tentative in action. A running joke through out the movie is of Jack being incapacitated by his own actions or in defense of his person when the big fight scenes begin. As the fight scenes progress, you see the camera pan through the various characters fighting valiantly and Jack Burton lies unconscious or struggles to free himself, only to insert himself into the fray when the action has all but died down. However, Jack Burton does get the manliest fight scene in the end and does, after all, save the day. Kim Cattrall's Gracie Law is the bleeding heart liberal who is trying to combat sex trafficking when she was caught up in the misadventure of the story. Her relationship with Jack Burton dances on the edge of heavy flirtation but there was never any chance of it progressing pass fleeting touches and kisses in the heat of the moment... Jack Burton, after all, is his own man...

Ah... it is such a nice way to loose oneself for 90 odd minutes and not have to think about the news that circulates our world today... after all, when the Pope has decried Christmas as a sham in this world of continuous violence... one really needs to wonder if we have hit rock bottom yet.

i, for one, am glad to have movies such as "Big Trouble in Little China" to escape into.

Obergefell v Hodges... and choice

On June 26th, i was elated to read on NY Times the SCOTUS decision on Obergefell v. Hodges. Finally, the court has made the decision to not maintain the hodgepodge collections of state-centric decisions on "legalized marriage" and gave the nation a unified definition of "marriage".

i, however, find much irony in the resultant reaction. From the religious and secular right. For a segment of citizenry that is so vehement in withholding the choice of marriage to the LGBT segment of the population (yes, it is still a choice, to marry or not to marry), a slice of the US of A that is so keen on insisting their definition of marriage is the only true definition of marriage, they are certainly very quick in immediately -- vocally -- speaking out against the fear (entirely their's) of their CHOICE to marriage definition from being DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. Are they not now asking for the same considerations that the LGBT citizens have been fighting so long and hard for? Are they not now fearing the same victimization they so adeptly leveled out?