Did I Believe?

The following is the first of two Christmas poems I wrote when in the Navy (I'll save the other for another year). Merry Christmas to you! -j.p. ©Emittravel 2010

Did I Believe?

Hot sands

under sandaled feet.

Many miles

I’ve walked this day,

and many more

come the morrow.

Through icy wind

and desert heat,

to a loving being

I am drawn.

It started as rumor,

to laugh and to scorn.

Though some kept it quiet;

to keep it with hope.

Did I believe?

That I did not know.

So many false,

to me it must show.

Into the night

I keep up my stride.

If I stop to rest

that hope just might die.

A single star

to light my way.

To see the new king

who was born this day.

J.P. Wiegand

©Emittravel 1986

This Will Hurt You More Than . . .

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution states:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

Now, I'm no lawyer, and I don't play one on television, but I have to admit, when I read the above I have difficulty understanding just where Congress gets the ideas they have concerning their (apparently) unlimited power. Maybe one has to actually BE a lawyer to really muddy up the works and make "black and white" nothing but "shades of grey". When I read this I see the word "among" in the middle when referencing "the several states", whereas the word "with" is used when referencing the other two. Why? Relationships, my friends; relationships.

The ability to have commerce between the United States and foreign nations would be difficult if left in the hands of multiple state governments, each with their own regulations. What about the borders? Tariffs? Protection of shipping lanes? Very difficult for the state of West Virginia to control what enters the ports of New York. It makes sense for the central government to develop the relationships with foreign nations, negotiate treaties, and therefore "regulate" the commerce developed in the relationships. The same with the Indian tribes. They were widely scattered, and in many cases, mobile communities, that traversed state lines. A difficult relationship to secure if each state handled communications differently. But what about commerce and the states?

The word "among" is a relational word that is defined, in part, as "in the midst of", "with a share for each of", and "by all or with the whole of" (Dictionary.com). This word denotes an established bond between the states already in existence. In other words, interstate business relationships. So, if there is commerce ALREADY IN EXISTENCE between states, the central government has the right to step in and regulate it for the good of the nation.

The point? The Congress' use of the "commerce clause" as a right to enforce a national health care mandate (i.e. "Obamacare") is a clear overstepping of their authority. There IS NO health care commerce ALREADY IN EXISTENCE between the states TO regulate! We in Ohio can't buy health insurance offered in Wyoming. Each state handles health insurance separately. The ability to purchase health insurance across state lines was one of the suggestions made during the debates leading up to the Obamacare vote. It was argued down. Apparently the federal government is far better at regulating better coverage at lower prices than the free market is. I guess that, in the eyes of Congress, socialism is far superior, and more effective, than capitalism. I'm thinking it would have been smarter to allow interstate commerce of health insurance, and THEN they would have something to regulate.

So, the next time you hear one of our illustrious leaders spout the "commerce clause" as their reason for regulating something, hand them a dictionary, and then tell them to turn their head and cough!!

©Emittravel 2010

Angel

Here's a promised break in the "It's broke" series. This was written back in 1999. Based loosely on a true event. The drawing was provided by my lovely bride.



Angel

She sits quietly.

Apparently alone.

At least for now.

Corner table.

Single candle.

Two glasses.

One with wine.

One empty.

She looks at her napkin.

Occasionally.

She looks toward the door.

Often.

She looks my way.

Never.

That may be good.

Don’t know how I’d react.

Catch the gaze of those eyes.

Melt me where I sit.

She’s beautiful.

Almost too beautiful.

Out of place here.

Sitting alone.

Who could leave such a creature alone like this?

Stupid.

Not a good word.

But appropriate.

Maybe I should say something.

Maybe I shouldn’t.

I shouldn’t.

She twists the ring on her finger.

Turning it slowly.

Glancing at the door.

Still alone.

Stupid.

J.P. Wiegand

©Emittravel 1999

A moment captured; a painting in words; a scene - any place, any time, anywhere. Something almost everyone has witnessed - and a few unfortunate have experienced.

-j.p.

©Emittravel 2010

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #3

It's broke . . .

This article will have some reference material from our country's founders. Please do not skim over it; it is necessary to make my point. And I did try to be brief. And as you read, I'm sure you will understand that one of the ways to "fix it" is:

Term limits for all elected officials. If it is good enough for the President, it is good enough for them!

From Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States:

3.1 The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, FOR SIX YEARS; and each Senator shall have one vote. (emphasis added)

3.2 Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class SHALL BE VACATED at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, SO THAT ONE THIRD MAY BE CHOSEN EVERY SECOND YEAR; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. (emphasis added)

(Note: 3.1 was changed in the 17th Amendment to show that they were to be elected by the people of each state thereof, and not by the legislature.)

Federalist Paper #63, concerning the possibility of the senate being transformed into a "tyrannical aristocracy", argued that by holding an election every two years would bring NEW individuals to the body, ONE-THIRD of the members, thereby preventing a tyrannical and corrupt Senate by the very vacating of the members. Federalist Paper #64 argues that the knowledge gained by the body would be maintained by the TWO-THIRDS that remain every two-year election cycle, thereby keeping the "wisdom" of the Senate that we hear is so important.

My point? The writers of the above documents NEVER IMAGINED LIFE MEMBERS like Byrd, Kennedy, Kucinich, etc. The word "incumbent" was not a term they recognized. If they did, their arguments against a corrupt Senate would have been meaningless. They saw only ONE-TERM Senators. That's it. No more.

What do we have today? A clearly corrupt Legislative Branch of the government. A group only concerned with their own agendas and NO LONGER ANSWERABLE to the people.

Don't agree with me? Really? C'mon. Didn't you stay up and watch all of the back slapping on CSPAN as they PROUDLY voted in ObamaCare?

Sure, there is an election every two years, but honestly, have you tried to wade through all of the mud to find what is truth about the candidates? Refer to Article #1 of this series (below) to see how difficult it is to even discern the voting records of these bozos.

If the founders would have known what Congress would have become, I'm sure they would have felt obliged to explicitly spell it out! Apparently, they felt the members of THAT society were more honorable. Of course, they didn't have all of the cushy benefits of staying in office like they have voted themselves today!

I'm making the point with just reference to the Senate. Again, these are to be quick articles. It would take quite a few more keystrokes, and liquid stabilizer, to go into areas such as the Supreme Court. But rest assured, as I've read through the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, the first reference to a "re-election" of an official was of the President. If the concept was even a consideration, it would have been mentioned when discussing the House of Representatives and the Senate as well.

By the way, the Congress passed the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947, limiting the President to two terms of four years. I would love the Congress to pass such an amendment concerning themselves. Shouldn't people like Nancy Pelosi, champion of the most non-corrupt government, lead the charge? The founders believed it to be a way to curb corruption. I'm thinking they were right!

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2010

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #2

It's broke . . .

1. Lock the Federal budget for 2011 at the actual 2010 budget amounts. Actual budget amounts, not projected budget amounts. No new spending allowed for anything. Anything. Not one dime for any new projects; no current department increases. Nothing.

Understand, when Congress, or the President, brags about cutting the budget by, say, $250 Billion, what they really mean was that they were going to INCREASE the budget by $1 Trillion dollars, but decided to cut out $250 Billion and only INCREASE the budget by $750 Billion. See? You can always tell when a politician is lying: their lips move.

2. After one year reduce that budget amount by one percent - across the board. Not equal amounts, but equal sacrifice. No special interests. Nothing. This means not "punishing" the military and "boosting" education - or visa versa! Every line item on the budget gets a one percent reduction. Like real businesses do, review what you are doing and cut the fat. A real business doesn't last very long swimming in red ink. If a department/project isn't working, quit throwing more money at it!! Give it a polite funeral instead.

3. Reduce that budget by one percent across the board the next year, repeating each year until the country is in the black. That means, the outgo is less than the income, the country owes no one anything, and the complete elimination of the deficit.

...and we'll give you the key when you've cleaned your (the country's) room!!

This would force Congress to "balance the budget" and get us back on track. We USED to be the world's largest lender, and NOW we are the largest borrower. I always wondered what would happen if countries like China decided they wanted us to pay them immediately, in full, for what we owe them . . .

4. Oh, and shut down that damn printing press! Now, you have to understand that one of the ways the government can get out of debt is printing more money. They then pay off the debts with that money. In reality it also has the benefit of lowering the value of that money by flooding the market, in other words, INFLATION.

If someone outside the government prints currency it is considered counterfeit. Why? It doesn't have the full confidence and backing of the United States. It has less worth than Monopoly money. But if the government keeps printing money to represent money it doesn't actually HAVE, THAT is worth less than Monopoly money too.

There is an old proverb that says if you are faithful with little you will be faithful with much. Congress has proven that they have not been faithful with the PEOPLE'S money - they should not have more of it until they PROVE themselves otherwise.

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2010

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #1

It's broke . . .

Okay, so we got politicians in Washington that are known to do the least amount of damage when they are on recess. The economy has a spike upwards, the stock market is strengthened, and, due to the lack of toxic hot air spewing from those who only love the sound of their own voices, the temperature in our nation's capital returns to non-global-warming levels. But since they DO spend time in Washington pushing through legislation, and since that seems to be their only purpose (spending the PEOPLE'S money), here is an idea to help control the fiscal damage they produce: One Bill, One Vote, No Riders.

One of the reasons that spending is so out of control, is that there are so many items attached to a bill that has nothing to do with the original bill. You have heard the phrase "pork-barrel spending".

Initial bill (thanks Schoolhouse Rock!)



After the bill makes the political rounds . . .

How in the world does money to investigate the affect of fruit flies on road construction have to do with defense spending? (Okay, I made that example up, but to be honest, the actual spending is less believable.) Nothing. Not a thing. So, how do those things possibly pass? They pass as riders. Have you heard John Kerry say he voted FOR something BEFORE he voted against something? Once you have picked yourself up from the floor, and think about it, you realize he may ACTUALLY be telling the truth. Here's how: He voted FOR something only because he was voting FOR something that this particular item was attached to. When that same item later comes up for a vote he can vote against it. You see, just because a politician voted on something in a way you disliked, does not mean he was not properly representing you. You have to determine if the item was a rider on a bill that he SHOULD have voted for. (This logic also works in the reverse.) By the way, this was only an example; he may really be as insane as he sounds.

The solution is that each bill presented ONLY receives a vote for THAT bill. No riders. If you want spending to take place for that bridge to nowhere, it MUST be voted on separately. This would first eliminate such spending (who wants to admit to ACTUALLY voting for such things), and second, provide a more accurate voting record to view at election time.

And one other thing: with One Bill, One Vote, No Riders, the need for a Presidential line-item veto becomes moot.

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2010

It's Broke. Time to Fix It! - An Introduction

"Oh yeah? So you think you are so smart, how would YOU fix things?"

Okay, no one outside of that voice in my head has actually confronted me with that question, but I feel that I should at least present a response to it. There are many "fixes" that I feel should be taken into consideration, but this blog would be the wrong place to give an overall treatise of them. But this blog IS a great place to address each one individually, and that is precisely what I plan to do.

Over the next weeks/months I will post (hopefully) short concepts that I feel would "fix" what is broken. Each one will be presented individually, but hopefully can be connected to each other as a consistent view. I don't claim perfection, but the idea is not to present ideas that would contradict each other. If that does happen, the idea is to take the "better" idea and implement it. These articles won't be back-to-back. I do plan on presenting other items separately as the thoughts present themselves.

Warning: If you are a politician and implement any of these, you may find yourself with a shortened political career. And to be honest, I certainly hope so! (There is a "fix" there that I plan on addressing as well!)

So let me grab my toolbox, and a refreshing beverage, and have at it! Enjoy!

©Emittravel 2010

Nanny-state-ism

Nanny-state-ism: where the government takes care of us because we are incapable of taking care of ourselves.

If you have ever watched television a month or two before a major election, you would have noticed that almost every ad was a muckraking ad about how bad the other candidate was. What this means is that every candidate on the ballot is a lying, cheating, stealing, back stabbing, kick-granny-when-she's-not-looking, jerk. So when you go in to pull that lever (or create that dangling chad, or complete the ACT, or whatever) you are going in to choose the lesser of two evils.

Muckraking . . . mudslinging . . . it's all better in a Jeep!

Now this is how the system works: People who are incapable of taking care of themselves have the responsibility of choosing those to take care of us by selecting the lesser of two evils who will then take care of us because we are incapable of making good decisions on our own.

Got it?

In other words, the next time a government "official" wants to ban something like trans-fats because he doesn't believe people have enough brains to decide on their own to stay out of the restaurant (or order something healthy), he needs to be reminded that the only reason he is even IN a position of authority to make such a cockamamie proclamation in the first place is that the very people he feels that can't take care of themselves voted his sorry ass INTO office.

(Note: I've ignored many a grammar rule in order to give the above more "punch". I ain't that bad an administrative assistant. Honest!)

Thanks to my friend Mark at the Cutting Edge of Ecstasy for inspiring this entry.

©Emittravel 2010

Taxing into Oblivion - Is That Even Possible?

It is funny to me that the environmentalists have been screaming that we need to find alternative sources of energy and that we need to cut back our energy use drastically, due to the limited amount of oil in the earth, but politicians believe that there is an endless supply of tax dollars to be had, and they think they need to spend more so that we don't run out.

Just let that (incredibly long sentence above) soak in for a minute. I guess that goes to prove that opposites do indeed attract; environmentalists and big-government politicians do seem to spend a lot of time together . . .

Now I do not consider myself an environmentalist. Heck, the way the city I live in got me to recycle was by a monetary incentive: the city pays (we pay via our tax dollars) for trash pickup by the pound - the company that picks up our recyclables does not charge the city, for they make their money in the processing and selling of said recycled materials - for every pound we recycle we save tax dollars - incentive!! But I do believe we are called to be good stewards (managers) of what we have.

(willing to save a buck!)

In MHBAO, fossil fuels ARE limited and we will EVENTUALLY run out - but not tomorrow. So, we SHOULD be looking at alternative energy sources, but without panic and ESPECIALLY without government mandates. And I also believe, and common logic verifies this, that eventually the feeding of government will exceed the sources of food (taxes).

During the last presidential election, the definition of what was considered "rich" was questioned. If the money to pay for everything was to only be taken from the rich, what, exactly, would make a person fall into that category? Would $500k? Or $250k? Maybe it was $150k? How about $100k? Is that combined income for couples, or is that for singles? And is that amount adjusted for inflation? But hey, as long as I make less (and resign myself to NEVER making more) they can punish those "evil" rich.

(the truly "evil rich" - who are exempted from most of what they dish out)

Just a quick look at Social inSecurity would tell you that the government is incapable of keeping their word on anything. Social inSecurity was designed for a tiny percentage of the population, and was to be paid for by a tiny percentage of the population - the most wealthy (a.k.a the "evil rich"). Today I'm not considered part of the "evil rich", according to the gyrations of the oh-so-wise-and-benevolent politicians, but when I look at my pay stub I see quite a large amount being taken for Social inSecurity. So, what am I?

Oh, and let's not forget that the "trust" fund that originally held the money put in, so that there was something to draw from upon retirement, has been sucked dry already. That's right folks, nothing but I.O.U.s. (Quick lesson: there is NO such thing as being taxed and having that money going ONLY for a certain purpose - it is all just one big pie to the politicians.) You and I are paying for those currently receiving it. Think about the effect unemployment has on that!

Before you think I'm just meandering in this blog article, I do have a point to make. The money for all of these "necessary" bailouts, stimulus, and other programs, is supposed to be coming from those "evil rich". We are told that is one of the reasons for eliminating those "evil" Bush tax cuts. But like Social inSecurity, what happens when that oil well runs dry? They start drilling in YOUR wallet. At one point, and we are darn close to it now, there will be more spending taking place than revenue sources.

The solution is simple: you can only raise taxes so much (before you cripple the economy and cause a major collapse). Politicians need to do the unpopular and cut spending. I know, I know - that is political suicide! After all, isn't that what they were elected to do? Spend your money better than you can? They say that if you rob Peter to pay Paul you are guaranteed Paul's vote. What happens when you run out of Peters? Will they decide we've spent enough at that point?

There is an old proverb: When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall.

©Emittravel 2010

Man-made Global Warming? Mother Nature Disagrees!

We've heard much over the last few years, from politicians to The Weather Channel, from celebrities to bloggers, and preachers of hysteria everywhere, that mankind has a death wish and that the world is on its way to being the ultimate bake sale product. Former Vice President Al Gore even set aside his political ambitions and donned the robes of religious authority in the worship of Mother Earth.

The major push is that through mankind's selfish ambitions, and total disregard for the earth's natural resources, the earth's global temperature is on a dangerous climb upwards. Now, there has been plenty of dissent concerning this push, but this blog entry is not to give an in-depth investigation into each argument. Some of them have been things like the temperature on Mars has been on the rise (which is pretty amazing to think that that SUV you are driving has more than just a global impact - it has a galactic impact as well), or that the data that is being used was originally obtained from technology that was just that side of indoor plumbing, and has since been manipulated to the point that the accuracy has greatly diminished to something less than blind-folded skeet shooting. No, this blog entry is to look at something else. Something beyond mankind's ability to control. I'm not even talking about the sun (which covers that Mars "inconvenient truth"). I'm talking about the mother of all polluters: toxic-fume belching volcanoes.

I remember being told by the scientific community back in the early 1980s when Mount St. Helens erupted, that there was more pollution, toxic greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide (which was before the EPA decided that exhaling was polluting) from that one eruption, than all of the industrial age COMBINED.

That, my dear readers, is worth repeating:

I remember being told by the scientific community back in the early 1980s when Mount St. Helens erupted, that there was more pollution, toxic greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide from that one eruption, than all of the industrial age COMBINED.

My question is, what happened to it all? I mean really! If what we have done to the earth is borderline irreparable, where is the damage from Mount St. Helens? I don't remember seeing a slide show condemning Mother Earth for her blatant disregard for her own well being. Come on, shouldn't someone fully take over power of attorney when it comes to her affairs? Sounds to me like she is totally incapable of caring for herself.

And Mt. St. Helens isn't my only example. In the first quarter of this year, Eyjafjallajökull (a name I'm not even going to attempt to pronounce, for fear that my "tongue will snap off its rollers" - to quote the great Hawkeye) erupted in Greenland. The most repeated news item I heard concerning this (and I admit, I don't watch news 24/7) was the disruption to air traffic over the area. I heard not a peep about the competition to man's race to the "finished" line.

Instead we have received a barrage of condemnation for man's behavior as a tenant, and demands for the "great landlord" to evict us, and nothing concerning the earth's volcanoes to please "stick a cork in it". But if a volcano is capable of spewing out much more destruction than all of man's efforts combined, than I would think it would warrant at least one slide in Mr. Gore's PowerPoint presentation. If the atmosphere wasn't so darned efficient at cleaning up after itself . . .

When it comes to "Joe vs. the Volcano", the volcano wins hands down.

©Emittravel 2010

Dreaming of You

The following is the first poem I ever wrote. It was back in 1984. I was at the Naval Training Center in San Diego, CA taking a 13 week course to work as a radioman. Enjoy!

Dreaming of You

When I tell you

that I love you,

I am telling you

that I am giving you

my heart...

My life,

of which I can

offer you

no greater gift.

You are always

on my mind.

As I awaken

in the morning,

the look

in your eyes

is the first thing

my mind

can picture.

I long to awaken

and not have to picture

those eyes,

but to actually see them

as I awaken.

I long to kiss

your lips.

The taste of which

I scream for.

To hold you again.

To feel you

in my arms.

To love you.

J.P. Wiegand

©Emittravel 1984

 
No matter the circumstance, being separate from the one you love creates a longing that rivals all others. Every moment, either awake or asleep, belongs to the one who holds your heart.

Sometimes I wonder - does she dream of me?

-j.p.

©Emittravel 2010

Ground Zero, Mosques, and You

I've been catching the "discussions" on TV and I want to hit this from a different angle: If the area that they want to build in is zoned to allow churches, they have every right to build there. We have a freedom of religion in this country - and that means a freedom of religions we may not like. I've heard comments such as "when they allow a Christian church to be built in their country, then we will allow a mosque at Ground Zero." Isn't that the point? You CAN'T build a Christian church there because they HAVE NO freedom. So, stifling our freedoms, even when inconvenient, is a step towards living in their country - and them WINNING!

If the area IS zoned for churches, the city may be able to vote a change in zoning. But, if the land has already been purchased, it may be grand-fathered in and they can build anyways. If the area is NOT zoned for churches, the argument is over. But understand, the arguments I've heard have been totally based on emotion. We are not a nation of emotions, but a nation of laws. What if an area, like say Utah, decided to not allow Catholic churches to build there? What would be the arguments be for, or against, that? I'm just saying . . .

©Emittravel 2010

Gulf Coast vs ANWR - Why isn't Congress being held responsible?

As of this writing, BP has been able to place a cap on the oil leak in the gulf. The media, though having to mention this by default, is slamming that fact by crying that the damage is extensive, costly, and time-consuming to clean up within the same breath.

Now, let me be clear: this is an ecologic/economic tragedy. I understand that. What I'm having issue with is that we have a deep, off-shore drilling accident, in international waters, and the U.S. government has the chutzpa to take the reins of control to hold BP (a foreign company, the last I was aware) accountable for this incident (hey, where is the United Nations when they are needed?). This is the same government that has banned drilling in places that are far more controllable, like the uninhabited Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) (nearest city - Barrow, Alaska, has a population of approximately 4,000).

The arguments have been going on for years whether drilling in places such as ANWR should take place or not. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a mostly-liberal appendage of the government, has fought for the caribou with gusto. Groups wanting to drill there argue that it is far easier to control any "catastrophe" in an area such as ANWR than in deep water drilling (as in the gulf).

The government, where logical thinking seems to completely escape them, made it illegal to drill in many places such as ANWR. Therefore, logically, they (and that can include the EPA as well) believe that the damage in the gulf MUST be far less of an environmental hazard than what the potentiality of the same type of leak out on the frozen tundra might be.

So, all of those individuals/families that make their living out there in the waters of the gulf should be THANKING our government for the blessing of destroyed lives from this catastrophe, and should be donating any aid they may receive to support those few caribou.

I'm a big time-travel buff. I collect movies, in any genre, that touch on the topic, I read novels that use it as a vehicle, and even delve into books from those with the brain capacity of Stephen Hawking. One of the big concepts that shows up time and time again (pun intended) is that of "cause and effect". Anything you do has a direct/indirect effect upon someone else. When Congress makes a law, it has an effect - in the ideal world it would only be a positive effect, but this isn't an ideal world. And that is just one of the reasons that the powers of the federal government are limited.

Now, BP is spending much in damage control - advertising, financial aid, etc. - mostly to maintain the image they have worked so hard to achieve. And yes, BP holds quite a bit of responsibility for the alleged corner cutting they did with this drill site. But I believe that the EPA/federal government should have THEIR feet held to the fire over this as well. If they would not have driven the oil companies out into deep water in the first place, we wouldn't be having to deal with the tragedy we now face.

For those who think that this would still happen, you have to consider basic economics: why go out of your way to do things the hardest way for less return on investment? But not to worry, the government's solution to this is to place a moratorium on any more deep-sea drilling too. THAT should help!

©Emittravel 2010

And no, I'm not switching to "chick flicks" . . .

Getting really tired of the trend in filming action scenes lately. It looks like they find a cameraman who is experiencing the DTs, give him a handheld camera with the zoom all the way in, and film the fight. The shots are so close up, and so jerky, that you can neither focus on what you are watching (the screen itself), nor tell what is happening. Makes me long for the old Kung-Fu movies where the fights were choreographed dances (or, for those of you wanting a little more recent example: "The Matrix")!

A couple of movies lately that I've seen where this seems to be the "norm" are "Star Trek" and "Clash of the Titans". In the fight scene in the bar in "Star Trek", for example, you really had no idea who was punching who, or who was winning or losing, at any given point.

The space battles were shown the same; just a lot of explosions, spastic imagery, and hollering. Maybe the studios are so concerned with actors being injured on the set, and the inevitable lawsuits that follow, that they do this to portray action without actually having the action. Probably takes less to film an action scene when you don't have to take the time to teach the actors choreography.

I'm told this is the way of action movies now-a-days. I think it is a cinematic copout.

Let's not be so lazy – and so insulting to us, the audience. I'm sure it is still possible to captivate without causing visual damage. Besides, don't actors have to sign a waiver anyways?

©Emittravel 2010