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
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
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
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
