And the Award goes...

In the past the Academy Awards Ceremony has been a much bigger deal at the Johnson house.  This may be one of the first times in family history we have not had a viewing party to go to or friends over to watch.  I have even babysat with the boys watching their Mother perform on the Academy Awards Show night in years past. And there was a time we kept with our friends children on Academy Awards night when those very friends were in the audience to receive an Academy Award. But not this year. 

At an unrelated party the night before we, along with our friends, all decided that this year we would chill and do our own thing for the evening.  That is exactly what Sandi and I did.  We opened a bottle of champagne and watched together.  I didn't even bother to bring out the traditional dumb bell.

Those who have not watched an awards show with me in the past may not be familiar with my tradition of manning the awards dumb bell. At the risk of a "stinging on line judgement" I will attempt an explanation.

It might surprise you to know that I have an opinion about most everything especially award shows. In the comfort of my own home and among friends I do not hesitate to express those opinions. Although cathartic for me it is a real distraction to those around me trying to watch the show. After years of complaints I have come up with a compromise that seems to work. At least it has saved my marriage.

The solution: The Dumb Bell.  The dumb bell is a generic desk bell like you would find on the counter of a retail store. You slap it with the palm of your hand and it rings. This bell is placed on the coffee table between the screen and the couch before the Awards show starts.  As the evening progresses rather than make comments on things that are happening during the show I ring the bell in honor of a "dumb" statement or event that happens. Thus it is referred to as the Dumb Bell. With this method I can register my complaint or opinion with little distraction to those also watching. And although I am not the only one who is allowed to express themselves in this manner, I seem to be the major user.  

There have been times when the traditional dumb bell has mysteriously vanished prior to some event. I have always been able to find it's hiding place before it is actually needed. (In truth I have an extra stashed away "just in case" that happens).

But alas I did not even feel the need to prepare the Dumb bell for last nights ceremony.  Chris Rock was funny,  and although the point needed to be made, the racial diversity subject became a little long in the tooth before the evening was up and it was not as edgy as hinted at the week before.  

My favorited Chris Rock joke was at the expense of Jada Smith.  "Jada Smith.... how can you boycott something that you weren't even invited to. It would be like me boycotting Beyonce's panties... I wasn't invited in." 

Louis CK was funny presenting the documentary short subject Oscar. He rightly pointed out that it would be the only Oscar that would go home in a Toyota. 

Sara Silverman... I very often don't get her and last night was one of those times. 

And once again Sandi reconfirmed that I would get a pass if I ever got to spend time with Charlize Theron.   

I suppose I should be grateful for the 3 and a half hour distraction from the circus of the political race. Unfortunately the dumb bell idea does not work for politics, it would simply be ringing all the time.

As you were,

Jay

"ANYTHING you say..."

It is a paragraph of just six sentences and most everyone knows it by heart.  It is called the Miranda Warning or your Miranda Rights.  We all know what it implies and what it means from watching most every television cop show produced since 1966. 

For me the most important part of that paragraph is the phrase "Anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law."  CAN AND WILL.  Not MIGHT or if relevant COULD, can and will. 

My all time favorite movie screenplay is "My Cousin Vinny". There is not a moment of dialogue in that script that doesn't belong. Every word, however seemingly unimportant, leads us to the final conclusion.  If you have forgotten the plot, a couple of kids are wrongly charged with the murder of a convenience store clerk.  They think they have been detained because they forgot to pay for a can of tuna at the same store. Thinking that he is being interrogated for that petty crime, Ralph Machio's character, William Gambini is explaining what happened.  His story ends when he accidentally walks out of the store with the tuna can. 

The local policeman then says, "So that's when you shot the clerk."

In confusion of what he has just heard Gambini says, "I shot the clerk?"

The cop confirms with a look. 

In total disbelief Gambini tries to clarify, "I shot... The clerk?"

The policeman nods in the affirmative and one more time Gambini tries to understand and says,

"I.... Shot the clerk?" It is then that William Gambini realizes this is not about a can of tuna.

Later at the trial the prosecution asks the police to read Gambini's statement. With the cold recollection of courtroom testimony, the policeman reads this: "I ask him if that is when he shot the clerk.  He replied 'I shot the clerk.  I shot the clerk. I shot the clerk.' " ANYTHING you say, CAN AND WILL be used against you in a court of law.

If the FBI prevails in this iPhone dispute you can expand that to mean "Anything you text, tweet, like, chat, share, comment on, delete, friend, unfriend or buy with your Apple Pay, CAN and WILL be used against you in a court of law.  Unfortunately you will not have the right to remain silent because the ANYTHING will be retroactively stored on what you thought was a private iPhone. 

The FBI is trying to minimize their demands by saying it's just one iPhone.  It's just one terrorist and the fear of another terror attack is greater than every one's right to privacy.  They want to make it seem as if this is a bank safe deposit box and they need a key to see what is inside.  That court order is made all the time. Difference is in the case of a safe deposit box the key will only fit one box, not the whole vault's worth.  What the FBI is asking to have, in the iPhone case, is a key to every deposit box at the bank in question as well as every other box in every other bank world wide.  

Oh, Jay... But if you have done nothing wrong why would you care if the government can have access to your private stuff? Because the very government I grant access to my privacy also has the ability  to change what is legally right and wrong. It happens all the time. Sears used to sell hypodermic needles filled with heroin through the mail before it was declared illegal. Day before prohibition a bartender was just a merchant selling beer, the next day he was a criminal. 

If I have the "right to remain silent" my iPhone should have a similar protection.  

As you were,

Jay

Apple vs. FBI

It is very complicated. But we have to get this one right.

I am a loyal fan and consumer of Apple products. For a while I had a independent contractor relationship with Apple and think they are ahead of the curve in most areas of technology. So it is not surprising that I would stand with Tim Cook in his refusal to create a back door into the iPhone. This places me in the minority of public opinion of most people believing that Apple should comply with the request of the FBI.  The one thing I am certain of, as a friend of mine said yesterday, "In a fight between the government and Tim Cook,  I believe Tim Cook is the smartest guy in the room." 

There are a few things that make this case different from the usual "search warrant" the government uses to negate your right to privacy.  It is a slippery slope and a Pandora's box if opened.  Once again the "government" is using fear of the unknown enemy to compromise our rights. The influence I have over this debate is non-existent, it won't matter which party or candidate I support because this is not an issue anyone gets to vote on.  I am simply an observer watching.  As futile as the process is I would feel worse if I kept it to myself. 

First, there is no back door to an iPhone. Apple is being asked to invent something that doesn't exist. The government is assuming that Apple programmers are so good that they can just write a few lines of code in a couple of days that will open up an iPhone. (For 30 years they have been writing Apple code to prevent that very thing from happening.)  If it were that easy to do, then the terrorist hackers would already have done it.  So, what if they can't do it? What if Apple tries its best but there is just no way to accomplish that task?  Will the government send the entire company to jail for contempt?

  

Of course the FBI is demanding this be done on the huge assumption that there is "something" inside that phone that is useful. This is not a game of Clue and the iPhone the black envelope, there is no surety that anything but cat photos exists inside that phone.  Remember it was the FBI who spent thousands of dollars and many days searching a lake for the terrorist's hard drive that they "assumed" was dumped there. After all that time and money, the hard drive wasn't there. 

But this is not as benign as the useless search of a lake. The FBI director says (in a tweet), that it was only this phone that they are asking unlocked (with a  key that doesn't exist by a door that isn't there).This key would only be used once? That secret will be safe? Look how well we were able to protect the secret of nuclear weapons from the wrong hands. He is either naive, stupid or trying to deceive us.  Once that door is built and a key made, anyone can use it at anytime on any iPhone anywhere for any reason.  There is only a question of who would use that back door quicker, the corporate advertisers or the fanatical terrorists. 

Let's assume this iPhone had been completely destroyed, and the terrorist captured alive. We could assume there must be some helpful information that the FBI would want locked inside this terrorist's head. So how do we get to it? What is the code, the hack, the backdoor to his brain that we can use to get at that information.  There is none.  That has never stopped governmental over reach. We now know that our own government has used torture and "enhanced" interrogation techniques in the past to try to open that back door into a terrorist's mind.  It was a dismal failure and created more harm than information.

Here is the bottom line. The smart phone is not simply a communication device. As we use it more and more, it becomes "hard storage" for our minds.  I don't even have my Mom's phone number in my brain anymore, my iPhone stores it for me... I just tap her picture when I want to phone her. My personal iPhone has bank account numbers, credit card numbers, personal thoughts, personal communications and a lot of other stuff that used to exist only in my brain.  There is no question that America places great value on the private personal thoughts and feelings of every individual. Sure it would give us all more safety if the government could "hack into" a serial killers brain and arrest him before he commits a crime. Why not ask Pfizer or GlaxoSmithKline or Abbot Labs to create a pill or an implant that gives the FBI the ability to see what's inside some one's mind? They only want to use it for "one person" they think might do something dangerous.  They are not asking to "unlock" every one's mind. After all it is only going to be used to keep us safer.  For this little bit of safety we give up all the privacy of personal thoughts in our mind.  Being able to think any thoughts I want to in the privacy of my own mind is human freedom and transcends any creed, religion, government or philosophy.   

This may sound like a stretch, but in a world that grows with exponential technology making Apple create a back door and magic key to a personal iPhone is the first step in taking away that very human Freedom.  

As you were,

Jay

How about an American?

I have resisted blogging about current events for the last few weeks.  Until this weekend there was nothing to comment on except this never-ending Presidential race.  I am even more convinced that we should adopt Germany's rules for elections.  In German elections, the candidates only get 6 weeks to campaign before voting, so there can be no marathon campaigns that cost fortunes.  I would even be willing to stretch that to 3 months, but the year and a half we endure here in America is simply wasteful and disruptive. I am ready for Facebook to go back to posting pictures of food and kittens, instead of mean spirited political memes.

Don Scalia

But then over the weekend at a ranch in Texas the game changed.  The judicial Don of the privileged class, the consigliere of the right wing, longest serving Supreme Court Justice and some might argue the man who gave George W. Bush the 2000 Presidency, Antonin Scalia died. 

He was the first Italian American appointed to the high court, and looked, to me, more like a defendant than a judge. In an alternate universe he could have been a gangster with a nickname like Icepick or the Bull and been more notorious, but instead he became a Reagan appointee to the Supreme Court.

I understand he had a great sense of humor and when not talking about politics, religion, or social issues could be socially engaging. He drank and partied at private outings with the 1% which is what he was doing the day he died.  

He became famous for his "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution. I think everyone is agreed that the founding Fathers "original" concept of the Supreme Court was to be completely separate and independent from the politics of the other two branches of Government. As a judge Scalia's writings were clear, easily read, and understood. In a right leaning court he was usually the one who wrote the majority opinion. I can't say I ever agreed with his constitutional opinions, which trended toward racism, homophobia, and the blurring of separation between Church and State. It's obvious that the independence of the Supreme Court has been severely compromised in the last 30 years.   

I am not a legal scholar but it seems to me a "constitutional originalist" has very much in common with a person who takes the Bible literally. I think for these two documents to maintain their connection to modern times they must grow to include ideas and advancements that did not exist when they were originally written.  

But Scalia is no longer a member of the Supreme Court so all this is moot.

Now the government has a job to replace Judge Scalia so that decisions can't end in a 4 to 4 tie. Republicans have vowed they will not let a replacement be seated while Obama is President.  The reason is obvious, they do not want a liberal judge to be seated and upset the conservative majority they have enjoyed for decades. The Democrats want a liberal judge appointed and the Republicans want a conservative appointed and it looks like neither side will compromise. This is the issue and the problem as I see it.

We are a nation of differences.  "We the People" have different religions, different ethnic backgrounds and different political parties but "We the people" stand together in one singular group called Americans. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the "independent, non-religious, non-political mediator" of what the constitution defines as American.  To that end we should look for the most intelligent mind  in a person who will consider the evidence presented, leaving all petty personal opinions out of the discussion and decide what is best for America and Americans.  No Supreme Court Judge should be the poster boy (or girl) for any special interest subgroup or political party. 

When called for jury duty and during the selection process the presiding Judge will address every personal conflict a juror might have with an admonition that goes something like, "do you think you can set your feelings aside,  look at the evidence presented in this court objectively and come to a conclusion based solely upon the evidence you hear?"  Why is that the standard expected of me for a week's worth of jury duty and not for a Supreme Court Judge who is appointed to that duty for life? 

I would hope and pray that the Senate and the President appoint neither a Democrat nor a Republican, Conservative nor Liberal nor Deacon to sit on the court. We need a person not affiliated with a political party, special interest, religion nor sect of any kind.  We need to say to that person, "can you set your feelings aside,  look at the evidence presented in this court objectively and come to a conclusion based solely upon the evidence you hear?" 

How about a brilliant American with no other identifying tags to become a Supreme Court Judge for the rest of their life? 

As you were,

Jay

Wearing A Career on Your Sleeve...

Recently I was sitting in the audience to see a friend and fellow performer do a show.  The MC, also a friend, gave me a shout out from the stage.  He simply said, "We are pleased to have Tony Award Winner, Jay Johnson in the house."  I gave a little wave to the MC. That used to be all there was to this process.

With humility and contrition I admit that this is not a rare phenomenon.  I have been honored to get a shout out from stage at some notable performances.  Several are clearly cherished moments in my memory.  Ann Margret had me stand up and take a bow at one of her Caesars Palace Las Vegas Shows. That was wonderfully unbelievable.  On another occasion Wayland Flowers, actually Madame herself,  had me take a bow at one of his Vegas shows. Madame said to the crowd that only She and I knew that my puppet Bob had a "little tiny weenie". In those days it was exciting and fun.

So being introduced from the stage is not new to me, but it has become a new experience in this high tech world. 

At this last event the guy sitting next to me said, "You won a Tony?"  The tone in his voice turned skeptical when he added "for what?" I told him it was a show I had written for myself called "Jay Johnson: The Two and Only".  I am very good at phrasing answers in a way that ends a conversation I don't wish to continue. This was one of those times.

As my friend took the stage, the man sitting next to me was ignoring the performance, completely engrossed in his iPhone.  A couple of people were giving him the stink eye being annoyed by the light from his screen.  I was ready to say something when I looked over and saw my picture on his phone.  Then I saw the Playbill logo and a New York review.  He had "googled" me and my show. When he saw that I was aware of this fact he turned his phone off.

That should have been the end of it but it wasn't.

A few minutes into my friends show the guy turns to me and says this: "So you were only on Broadway for three months and the investors didn't get paid back, but you won a Tony... I get it."

The tone of his voice was definitely condescending. It was a rhetorical question. There is no satisfying answer.   I was uncomfortable sitting next to him for the rest of the show.  At the end, I shuffled out quickly so I would have no more interaction with this guy.  

In the days before instant meaningless information, this guy would have waited till he got home to "research" my career,  assuming he still remembered my name or the name of my show.  By then it would be too late for him to make a personal comment to my face. But because of modern social media, the actual social contact was sour.  This interaction bothered me.  I tried to let it go and move on but was not successful. I was there to see a friend. I was not there to get personally reviewed by a guy who obviously considered my Tony some sort of consolation prize.

It isn't just me, it is happening to people all the time.  An actor friend was at the airport when he "got googled" by a guy waiting for the same plane.  The guy found a 30 year old publicity picture of my friend on line and said, "Wow you have really changed." And shared the old picture on his Smart phone to the others around him.  My friend got up and left rather than hit the guy in the face.

In this virtual society of shares, likes and comments it would seem that everything needs an opinion. Most of the time that is not true nor is it necessary.

We all have the right to our own opinions, and there is nothing wrong with having a contrary thought, but with that right is also the responsibility to keep it to ourselves.  A personal comment to some stranger's face that can be taken as an insult is always rude. Until people learn basic civilized polite ways to interact they should not be allowed to use this powerful tool called the Internet. 

To sum up, "What you think of me is none of my business, so keep it to yourself."  I will only entertain opinions from those who have earned my respect. If you earn that respect, I will ask for your opinion. Absent that, get on with your life and let me do the same. I am sure others feel the same way.

As you were,

Jay

Not Political

Donald Trump feels that although he is one of the richest men in the world he does not have the respect of the World leadership.  To further his Presidential hopes he wants to get some sort of endorsement from a respected world leader.

With Pope Francis visiting Mexico, Trump decides to make a last ditch effort to meet with him before the New Hampshire Primary.  So Donald takes the Trump Jet to Mexico.

Trump finds out which hotel the Pontiff is staying but because of Vatican security he cannot get an appointment with the Pope nor will they even let Trump into the hotel.

Not to be deterred, Donald Trump waits outside the hotel with the thongs of people waiting to catch a glimpse of the Holy Father.  

The Pope exits the hotel finally and heads for his pope mobile.  He waves to the crowd as Donald Trump jumps up and down trying to get his attention, but to no avail.  The Pope sees a homeless man off to himself in battered clothes, worn out shoes sitting up against a wall. The Pope leaves the cluster that surrounds him and goes over to the homeless man. He puts his arm around the homeless man's shoulder and whispers something into his ear.  Then he gets into the pope car and drives off.

Trump is disappointed but starts to analyse the event.  He thinks to himself, "The Pope doesn't want to meet with me, Donald Trump the billionaire. He is the people's Pope and wants to comfort his flock."  

So as the crowd thins Trump goes over to the homeless man and says, "Listen, I know you don't have a home so I will buy you a house if you will give me those shoes.  And I know you need money so I will buy that torn jacket and those worn out pants for $200,000.00, and you can have my pastel tie, my shoes, shirt and this suit... What do you say?"  The man agrees and the two men exchange money and clothing.

The next day the Pope comes out of the hotel ready for his day of service.  The crowd is just a big as it was the day before and as Pope Francis looks around he sees Donald Trump off to himself in battered clothes and worn out shoes sitting up against a wall.  The Pope breaks away from the crowd and goes  up to what looks like the homeless man he spoke to the day before.  Pope Francis puts his arm around Trump's neck and whispers in his ear,

"I thought I told you yesterday to get the fuck out of here." 

Not a true story, yet.

As you were,

Jay

Thanks KAX.....

I just got back from KAX 3.0,  a conference where nobody talked about politics, religion nor the economy.  The gathering did not divide along lines of Democrat, Republican nor Reactionary, nor was there a distinction between Catholic, Jew or Buddhist. The only lines of definition were, Magician, Ventriloquist, Clown, Puppeteer and Balloon Artist, and even those labels were fuzzy.  Some in the group could claim membership in each category.  The concerns at this gathering were: how to become more creative and how to find more ways to express that creativity.

KAX is a place where imagination and artistry is discussed and deconstructed as much as one can quantify such abstracts.  The attendees have a wonderful respect for the masters of these variety arts and honor the elders who have gone before. The attendees are there to learn from performers who have "been there and done that". 

In the three days I did not turn on the hotel television once, and totally missed the Republican Debate. There was really no time to dissect social media, I was too busy talking to people who hear the same drum beat as me.  I quickly learned that this political firestorm which seems to be consuming the nation is really nothing more than a very bad television reality show.  The disgust that has been burning me up for the last few weeks is not internal combustion.  I have just been standing too close to a manufactured, man made (and televised) fire.  

Recently I have taken a few hits to my blog editorials as being too political and me personally for hating Republicans.  I realize now how easy it is to become trapped in the whirlpool of a 24/7 political news and think there is nothing else going on.  

After spending some time with "my tribe" at KAX, I realize that I have recently devoted too many blog posts to politics. My blog is called "The World is a Stage" and for awhile I was lulled into a stupor that this national Political Farce was the only production currently running on the world stage.  It is not, and with a little perspective I can see the tempest in a teapot is a ratings driven provocation - not a mature reflection of its importance.  

However, to the person who accused me of hating Republicans, that statement is not accurate. I don't hate Republicans, I hate hypocrisy, liars and those who try to gain power by fear and panic.   Those are not the exclusive qualities of any political party nor religious sect. I will disagree with principles of exclusion and hate no matter what label they are given, be it a religion or political party. Unfortunately in a desperate attempt to retake the Executive Branch it is the Republican Party that has decided to use division, hatred and fear as avenues to that power.  To paraphrase Shakespeare "a hater by any other name would still stink".  

And one other statement in regard to that accusation; to disagree is not the same as to hate, and to compromise is not the same as defeat.  Statesmanship used to be a process of working closely with those you disagreed with to find a common ground on which to stand. The politics of both parties has forgotten that this is the job of an elected official. They should attempt to represent America and all Americans, not just their party and their favorite lobbyist.  

So thank you Mark Daniel and Steve Axtell for inviting me to KAX 3.0. My prayer is that this idea of artists coming together for the common good will continue to grow in attendance and importance. For me it was the perfect antidote to the poisoned rhetoric of our national conversation right now.  Perhaps if the haters of the world would make the effort learn a couple of balloon ties, they would have less time to hate. Perhaps we need more "Poly Tricks" and less politics. 
As for me... I'm working on a balloon poodle right now. 

As you were,

Jay

State of the Union

Based upon those who have decided to run for his job, it will be a long time before we have another President who is as smart and articulate as Barrack Obama. Of course there are those readers who will disagree with me immediately.

In a country of such extreme polarization, I would expect that. There will be no compromise legacy for President Obama, there will always be those who dislike him. The burden of proof that the haters are not "racially" bias is up to them.

That is not to say I believe he has been the most effective President we have ever had. When one has to fight a congress of the less intelligent and totally inarticulate how much can a President accomplish? The country will never know what he could have done if congress had worked with him instead of against everything he did.  

One of the things I have grown to literally hate in nationally televised political broadcasts is the "instant poll".  That graph they run at the bottom of the page giving the instant reaction of selected party Representatives is ridiculous.  To watch the "red line" go down and the "blue line" go up in absolute partisan predictability is not informative nor helpful.  Can't we hold our opinions and our dislike until we have heard the entire speech? You don't judge a book but the cover nor do you decide if it is a best seller after the third sentence.  What is very telling about the graph is although the up and down of all the colored lines were instantaneous, the lines neither crossed nor touched at any time during the speech. What that means is: at no time did the "parties" agree on anything the President said, NOT ONCE, and not for even seconds. The parties did not agree on any part of a speech that at times became a Valentine to America. The "Parties" did not agree even in principle when the President reminded us that America is a country of a diverse immigrant people.  

Once again Supreme Court judges Scalia, Thomas, and Alito decided to show their contempt for the office of the President by refusing to attend.  The idea that the "independent judicial branch" of government would so obviously show their partisanship is appalling.  How can we have any faith in their ability to make fair, non-partisan legal decisions when they flaunt their political leanings so obviously? 

But to make up for the absence of the Supreme Court Stooges a Republican congressman from Ohio invited Kim Davis.  Yes, Kim Davis the Kentucky County Clerk who went to jail briefly for refusing to issue marriage licenses.  She was very much out of place sitting in the back of the gallery looking more and more like Dick Cheney in a long wig. In some strange way I felt sorry for her. It is obvious she is being used by the Right as some sort of statement, but is too naive or stupid to understand what is happening.   

A person no one missed at the State of the Union Address was Sen. Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz remains the most hated man in congress by congress. In a telling statement Mitch McConnell said the Senate would not make any statement about the Cruz birther controversy nor his legal right to become President.  When the question of John McCain's citizenship was challenged (John was born in Panama) the senate passed a motion that said, "John McCain is qualified to be president because he was born on an American Military Base."  

The Cruz supporters responded with a statement that he is running for President and could not attend the congressional speech.  Bernie Sanders was there; he is campaigning.  Marco Rubio is also running and is of the same Party as Cruz  but Rubio was in attendance.  I am not a fan of Rubio, but the fact that he and Sanders were both there shows they have some respect for the office they wish to hold,  is a plus in my thinking.  I have yet to understand anything Ted Cruz respects.     

Your turn. That's all I got.

As you were,

Jay

Making a Murderer: not a review...an indictment

Instead of bingeing on Football this weekend I binged on the Netflick series/documentary "Making a Murderer."  I didn't intend to spend the weekend with such a tunnel vision of entertainment options, but found I couldn't stop gawking at this story.

No spoiler alerts here. Since I binged alone with my iPad and earphones, I can't even talk about it here at the house till others catch up. The rest of the family is a little more temperate about how much television they watch at a time.  This doc has to be seen because it is a complicated story with so many twists, lies and deceptions that in the retelling some mind blowing details might be missed.  Simply stated, it is the story of small town justice so perverted it willingly and purposefully destroys  those who threaten the institutional power.  

I am a story teller. I know the power of film and the subliminal ability to shape any visual to the editorial philosophy you desire.  Good guys can be made to look better, Bad guys worse and facts distorted to be almost unrecognizable. I do not believe that "Making of a Murderer" is an unvarnished look at sterile facts.  We come away with the emotional tug that the director and film maker want us to feel. This is not life, this is art imitating life imitating a court room drama.  But even sifting through the filters placed on the editorial, there is enough to be very disturbing to me. 

I grew up in a small town, smaller than the one in this documentary. Watching it I immediately gave me a stomach ache at the memory of how small towns work or don't.  Small towns: where everyone knows everyone else, how they are interconnected and how "town opinion" can literally send you to jail for the rest of your life.  

The extensive coverage of several trials in this documentary also made my skin crawl. Unfortunately judicial misconduct and incompetence are not solely the dominion of small towns.  I have actually witnessed the same tactics first hand in a Van Nuys courtroom. Police, detectives, investigators and district attorneys  are not in the business of finding justice or discovering the truth. It is all about winning.  Getting a confession is the goal not discovering the truth.  They will lie, cheat, intimidate and coerce their way into getting the verdict they want.  It is easy to judge a place, "Based on this documentary, I am never going to Wisconsin ever again," when the stench you are smelling is coming from you own local courtroom. What happens to Steven Avery happens to poor people daily and country wide, there just are not film makers documenting those struggles. 

There are so many courtroom dramas on television and in the movies we think we know how the system operates, but what you see on film about courts is no more real than the space ships of Star Wars.  We all know that once a verdict is handed down, the lawyers have the right to APPEAL.  This is supposed to be the check and balance on a system run by imperfect humans who unknowingly and often times knowingly do not play by the rules. We think an appeal is a chance to have a third party look, objectively at a trial. In reality the appeal can be heard by the same Judge that handled  the original conviction.  Very few judges will admit there was something wrong at the trials they conducted and will not let the appeal move forward. That was the experience I had in watching my friend appeal a conviction in Van Nuys.  In the original trial which ended in a hung jury, and in the subsequent trial the judge had ruled so much in favor of the DA and crippled the defense with his rulings he just continued his hostile actions toward them in the appeal. 

I have never wanted to serve on a jury. So far I have come close but have never been seated.  Like dogs I believe lawyers instinctively know when there is someone unfriendly toward them in the area.  They will thank and dismiss me fairly quickly after we begin the interview.  That has always been just fine with me until "Making of a Murderer".  I realize now that I quickly get cut from juries because they know I see through their bull shit.  By not wanting to serve on a jury I am dancing to the very tune that these soulless bastards are playing. How can I call Bull Shit foul if I am not in the game? 

In a day when there is no confidence in congress, when there are Bozos running for President, and cops are shooting first and asking questions later, one would hope that our system of justice would function well enough to balance it all out.  Occasionally it does. But to really have some sort of influence on this Country, it has to do a much better job.  Maybe it starts with guys like me who should be serving on juries but don't.  

As you were,

Jay

The EYES of Texas

As of the first of this year Texas became the biggest state in the union to allow, open carry.  

"Open Carry?" 

It sounds like some law that allows you to walk out of a bar into the street with a drink in your hand.  But don't try that, unless you're in New Orleans. If you walk out of a bar in Texas with a drink you could be arrested.   You can't be walking around the streets with an alcoholic drink it's just not safe.

Of course we know that the Texas "open carry" law applies to firearms.  On the surface it wouldn't seem that things have changed much in the Lone Star State. Texans have had the right to carry a concealed weapon for sometime now.  You need to get a permit. You do this by proving to law enforcement you need to carry a weapon because of your line of work or where you live.  Given the political temperature of Texas the mere fact that one lives in Texas could give you reason enough to carry a gun. Permits are no problem unless you are a friendless felon. But then again that permit is not like a drivers license.  There is a chance you will be stopped by a cop if you are driving an automobile.  He will ask you for your license. If you don't have one, you could be in trouble.  The gun permit is only important after that weapon has been used in some crime.  It is less of a risk to carry an un-permitted gun in public than it is to drive a car in public without a license, registration and proof of insurance.  

So, in Texas since last Friday you can carry any gun, (rifle, hand gun, semi-automatic) out in the open anywhere in public.  You don't have to hide it so people won't feel so threatened, you can just walk around Texas with a weapon like a soldier on patrol.  An AK47 is just a fashionable accessory when you're walking into KFC for a $20 Family Fillup Bucket. If you are holding a cigarette in that same KFC I can ask you to put it out or leave the area, it's a matter of my health vs your smoking rights.  But if you are holding a gun I can't ask you to unload it, put it down or leave the area. There is a constitutional loophole for the gun. But I see that gun as a threat to my health vs your gun rights as just the same as a cigarette. Eventually we will have some statistics to see if Live, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness increases under this new Texas law.  However, there has already been an ironic turn to the new law.  A Texan openly carrying his new pistol was showing it to a friend at a restaurant. He was robbed of the new gun at the restaurant in public, by another person with a gun.  Seems to me the snake is eating its own tail.  

If the NRA wants us to go back to the day of the old West when we all carried guns and settled our disputes outside in the street then things have to change.  Most importantly we have to know who is a bad guy with a gun and who is a good guy with a gun. In a moment of conflict and I am the one with the gun, who do I shoot? (You understand that I have cast myself as the good guy with a gun in this hypothetical. I suspect everyone does the same)  Carrying this gun in public means that I am comfortable being some one's  judge, jury and executioner in any surprise situation. And since sometimes the judge, jury and executioner get it wrong after a complete and complicated analysis of the situation called a trial, I really need to know who the bad guy is in a split second decision.  There needs to be a way that I can immediately determine the intent of a person with a gun.

If we are going to revert back to the old West to an open carry society, then movie Western rules have to apply. That's right a Cowboy hat has to be worn by anyone carrying a gun.  Even if it is a concealed weapon, a Cowboy hat will be issued with your permit and it must be worn at all times if you are in public carrying a gun.  In time of crisis those without Cowboy hats will rally behind those with the Cowboy hat. But here is the real game changer... The good guys carrying a gun will be issued a white hat and the bad guys who want a gun will be issued a black hat. 

Unfortunately there are a lot of Cowboy hats out there in all different colors. It would be too easy for a bad guy to get a white hat from say gang members selling them on the black market.  If you make it harder to get hats then only the bad guys will have white hats.  What if you just banned hats? You can't do that because we Americans have a right to wear any hat we want to. You can't just take away a Constitutional right because people are being killed by people in white Cowboy hats. Cowboy hats don't kill people.... Guns do. 

And now we are back to square one.  If there is a glut of heroin on the market we'll see an increase in heroin addicts. You can pass all the laws you want making it illegal to possess, sell or consume heroin but if there's a lot of it out there it is impossible to stop.  We have a glut of guns on the market. As long as there is a glut of availability then there will be an increase in gun violence.  There are no laws that can stem the tide of availability. 

When I was living in Texas I used to sing, "The eyes of Texas are upon you... All the live long day." Well, with your new social experiment with guns the eyes of everyone are now upon you Texas.  I will be interested to see who all lives from this long day.  

As you were,

Jay

Something on Line...

I found this on line.  I never knew it existed. Now I know why I was dismissed but had no idea an evaluation letter was sent to my insurance company.  I noticed that the date is before President Obama took office. 

As you were,

Jay

Looking back on 2016

Welcome to 2016. While everyone is reviewing what happened in 2015 I thought I would take the time to talk about what has happened in this current year.  

New Year's Eve in New York's Times Square came off without a glitch. By that I mean any sort of terrorist threat was prevented.  The only disaster they could not avert was the broadcast appearances of Jenny McCarthy and Ryan Seacrest on ABC. These two people are so unpleasant to spend time with they call the special "Dick Clark's Rockin' New Years Eve."  The implication in the title tells you that a dead man would be a better host than these two.

The alternative was to watch Kathy Griffin and Anderson Cooper on CNN. Not much difference except I like Anderson Cooper.  However, not when he is with Kathy Griffin.  I am not a Kathy Griffin fan. Mainly because I have a well defined line between what I think is funny and what is annoying.  Ms Griffin falls on the annoying side of the line for me, causing Anderson Cooper to become a giggling chorus boy. But..neither Seacrest, McCarthy or Griffin would be technically labeled a terrorist attack. So way to go Homeland Security.

On the first day of 2016 the Rose Bowl Parade came off without a hitch here in So Cal. Locally Stephanie Edwards and Bob Eubanks have been hosting the parade for 40 years and they announced this was their last one.  Since I arrived in LA, Stephanie and Bob have been the only ones to "call the parade" on my various televisions through the years.  I have to admit, next year there will be something amiss when I turn on the parade, their voices are the Rose Bowl for me.  All of us local fans were all hoping that the "unspecified threats" to the parade this year would not detract from their swan song exit.  Fortunately it did not.  There were no social disruptions nor terrorists operations of the festivities.  Although I have a theory about that. 

Although I can't prove it, I believe there has only been one actual Rose Bowl parade this millennium, they just keep replaying it year after year.  Think about it. They look exactly the same each year. Stephanie and Bob are always saying the same things. Who won the Governors Trophy last year? What was the theme last year?  What was the theme this year? The only thing Pasadena has to do is get some good insert footage of the college bands representing the Schools playing in the Bowl later and they are set. These two marching bands are the only thing that might identify one year to the next. 

So, although Homeland Security will take credit for another victory over terrorism at the Rose Bowl... We are not sure it even took place this year.  

That brings us up to date for this year and what a great year it has been.  Unfortunately I have broken all but one of my New Years resolutions already.  Oh well.  

All the best,

Jay

Hey, Siri? Ya listenin'?

Sidewalk at the Entrance of the North Hollywood
Police station...

I got a new iPad pro for Christmas. One of the new features on the current IOS is instant contact with Siri. After setting up a couple of voice pattern tests I "enabled" this function.  This morning I was able to simple say out loud in the direction of the iPad. "Hey Siri what time is it."  With no further need for my assistance like punching a button or booting the iPad up Siri said, "The time is 7:06 am, Jay." Now I admit, as amazing as that is, I could have gotten the same information easier by just looking at one of the three clocks I can see from my bed. However, since Siri is connected to the WWW I could just as easily have gotten the answers to much more complicated questions.  I found out that this hands free function is also available on my iPhone although I have never set it up and turned it on.  Supposedly, this function only works when the iPhone or iPad is connected to a charger, but the whole thing makes me wonder if George Orwells' 1984 has arrived and I should be addressing "Big Brother" not Siri. 

I am not a scientist but logically if Siri can respond to my voice any time it is plugged in and charging, that must mean it is always "listening" to the sounds around it in some capacity.  How else would it know to respond to my voice without any other prompt? Logically then, with the right wifi address or even serial number of my device anyone also connected to the World Wide Web could "listen in" just like Siri.  Theoretically my new iPad and my iPhone are the worlds most sophisticated bugging devices and I rarely leave my house without one or both of them.  Should I be worried that potentially I am allowing ease dropping of my own conversations on and off the phone? Heck no, this is America. It is illegal to do that without enough probable cause to get a Judge to issue a warrant.  Or not...

Over the Holiday's we watched the documentary "Citizenfour". It is a scary movie about Edward Snowden's whistle blowing leak and outing the NSA spying program.  Although I certainly remember the stir he caused, I never really understood what he was trying to expose until now.

This idea of "Metadata"- collecting every phone record, email, text, cell tower proximity, Google searches, sight visits and GPS coordinates of every American as well as perceived threats online is a complete invasion of my privacy. But to do that "Big Brother" would have to have to tag me with an electronic device that had the capacity gather all this Metadata and send it to Big Brother. What would some bug like that cost and how could a government get everyone in the United States to carry one. Well,  It is called a smart phone. Oh and by the way.... I paid for this bugging device myself and carry it with me voluntarily. 

We will never be conquered by a squad of jack boot brown shirts who march into our community and take away our rights.  We will gladly give up our rights to those we think are less evil than the people THEY claim are out to suppress us. We will become so scared of "the greater threat" that we will invite Satan himself into our homes if we think he can protect us. We are being ruled by the fear of "what if".  Remember this path of logical fear... What if Iraq gives their weapons of mass destruction to terrorists? We were afraid of that "what if" so much that we invaded a Iraq without provocation.  Oh and by the way... the weapons of mass destruction we were so afraid of... didn't exist.  Now we are being told to be afraid of the people who took over Iraq after we destroyed their government. When we get a handle on them we will find another "what if" to fear.  Maybe we should be more concerned about being spied on by the very people we thought were protecting us from that possibility.  

If you think smashing your cell phone, burying your iPad and dropping off the grid will keep you from being spied on, don't do it.  It's too late. Even if you don't have a smart phone on your person, the guy or gal next to you does and their GPS is on.  Oh,  and the security camera on that retail store you just passed, got a great shot of you.  

"Hey Siri...who is there with you listening to me ?"  I didn't get an answer because the iPad is not plugged in....RIGHT.   

As you were,

Jay

Age of Art

I'm a Mac Head. I was drawn, literally and figuratively, to the first Macintosh Computer primarily because of a program called MacPaint. It was a simple black and white program that let you draw on the screen using the mouse.  You could print out a black and white sketch a third the size of a standard 8x10 page.  Wow.. I thought.  Goodbye forever to ink spills on my drawing table even though the MacPaint pixels were so large it looked like something made with Legos. But, drawing on the computer was a new and exciting experience and I have never stopped. 

MacPaint gave way to more complicated art programs, full color, full page and eventually the ultimate drawing program for me... PhotoShop. But because digital drawing tablets were so expensive and clumsy I was relegated to doing my work with the mouse.  My friend Kirk Thatcher compared using a mouse to sketching with a bar of soap. It is a learned skill causing you to adjust to the needs of the computer rather than the other way around.  I was finally able to train myself to look at the screen and not my hand while attempting to paint on a computer with a mouse.  

The minute Apple announced something called the iPad, I got excited. It looked like a drawing tablet to me and I was sure that one day they would construct and app that would allow me to draw directly on the "page/screen".  The minute that happened, I said to myself, I would have one of those iPad toys.  

After the third generation of iPad, the speed and the apps were there so I decided to make the leap and purchase an iPad, primarily to draw on.  However, I quickly found that drawing with your finger is no more satisfying than drawing with a mouse.  I went to the Apple Store to get a stylus but couldn't find one among the accessories.  The "genius" told me they had them in the back, they sold them but did not encourage their use. It seems Steve Jobs believed things on the iPad should mostly be done with the bare hands.  

For me a stylus was the next step in learning to draw in the electronic age.  It is better than sketching with your finger or a bar of soap, but the rounded point of a stylus is as big as your finger tip. Using a a stylus to draw is like trying to paint with an un sharpened Crayola.  Once again as amazing as this technology was, I still had to adjust to the artistic demands of the technology, rather than have the tech hide seamlessly in the background.  I also discovered that the amount of time I spend drawing on an iPad wears out the average stylus in about three weeks.  Over the last few years I have spent a sizable sum of money on styluses for my iPad.  

So, Apple this year comes out with the iPad Pro.  Bigger faster and sexier than former models.  But the most important feature of the Pro is the Apple Pencil. It did not take long to make it happen after Jobs was no longer there to object. After playing with a demo model Pencil at the Apple Store, I was hooked.  

Apple was able to create the "stylus" that I have always wanted for the iPad.  It is smoother, faster and more responsive than any "digital tablet" I have ever tried.  The pencil tip is the perfect shape and size. Some how the perfectly balanced "electronic pencil" uses it's own touch and a bluetooth signal to make the experience of drawing on the iPad even better than pen and paper. 

Sandi gave me the iPad Pro for Christmas and although I was told I had to wait about 4 weeks for the pencil, she was able to find one for me to open Christmas day.  It is as exciting to draw with as I ever imagined.

So you might think that my art work has taken a dramatic turn for the better, especially since I have been iPad Pro drawing non-stop since Christmas morning.  I thought it was just a matter of having the right tool for the job.  Between, soap bar drawing, guessing where the line is under the tip of a flattened crayon and feeling like a "finger painting" child, I had forgotten how to draw with a pencil.  Since this is the closest thing to the actual feeling of drawing with a pencil, I am relearning how to use such a primitive tool.  Things like the pressure and angle of the Apple Pencil effect the opacity, size and strength of the line being drawn.  Until now that was only important when you were actually using a #2 Ticonderoga.  

It's getting there. Relearning how to be subtle with the stroke of a pencil is a good thing never to loose. But for now the learning curve is steep and the memory banks are a little dusty.  I can tell you now that I will never go back to drawing with a bar of soap, it's a new world.       

As you were,

Jay

What is Ted Cruz?

I like to think of myself as a pretty good judge of comedy. And since I have had some experience with the legal definition of parody and satire, I think I can tell that difference as well. That is why when I look at the "parody/satire humorous political ad" that Ted Cruz ran on SNL, it is neither.

It is supposed to be a spoof on infomercials selling Dr Suess like Children's books.  They are all Christmas themed political missives with titles like "The Grench that Stole Emails", and "Frosty the House Majority Leader". And perhaps the worst of all is a book cover showing a cartoon Ted Cruz placing a star on the top of a Christmas tree entitled "The Senator who Saved Christmas".  The Cruz family attempt at Suess poetry falls even harder. At the end the announcer says, "if you don't like this book then you probably don't like Christmas anyway."  Implied in the statement is, "if you are not with us you are against us and you are going to hell.  As we say in show business,  "What is a bad idea without poor execution."  

It seems as if Ted Cruz believes it is a good thing to remind Americans that it was he who filibustered congress with the reading of Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor, shutting down the government and knocking our national credit rating off the top tier. (Side note: we still have not regained that top credit rating). If Ted is looking for Dr. Suess philosophy as it applies to human nature he should read a Dr.  Suess book called, "Star Belly Sneeches."  

Just in case here is a tag to an animated version of the Star belly Sneeches. It mocks the idea that some consider themselves superior for the most insignificant difference.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLPe7XjdKc

Giving Cruz and his daughters the benefit of the doubt, knowing they do not make their living delivering comedy, I still think his ad is stupid and definitely not funny.  I would post it here so you could see for yourself, but I do not want to taint my blog with Cruz Koolade.  You can find it on line if you are so inclined. It is an embarrassment to everyone but Cruz who states at the end with his "Grampa Munster" mug that He "approved this message." 

If you Google "Ted Cruz idiot" you will find a lot of quotes the Senator has stated over the last couple years.  But one article stands out. It is an by Sophia McClennen written on April 5, 2015 for a publication called the AlertNet. She points out that Ted Cruz is not an idiot, he is delusional which is much worse.  

Ted Cruz wants America to become a theocracy.  He wants our Constitution and government to be based on the Laws of the Christian Bible.  At the same time he wants to destroy all countries that believe in Sharia law and keep Muslims out of the American mix.  Sophia McClennen is right, that is not simply idiotic it is delusional. 

ISIS is a political theocracy with the laws of radical Islam as the law of their government. The only difference between what Ted Cruz wants and what ISIS wants is the difference between the Koran and the Bible. Neither book, in my opinion, has any more relevance in government than one by Dr. Suess.  

On Monday the Washington Post published a political cartoon in Dr. Suess style depicting Ted as a Santa Claus Organ grinder and his kids as the monkeys collecting money.  Cruz lashed out at the Washington Post screaming liberal media slander and they took the cartoon down. I'm glad the Post decided to do that.  I believe that Ted Cruz's family should not be a target, especially his kids, BUT he started the pandering.  Had he not used his kids in an ill conceived political ad, then the Washington Post would have nothing to PARODY.   Yes, Mr. Cruz this cartoon was Parody on your attempt at parody. If you assume the right to make the comments you do, then anyone has the right to make comments about your comments.  

This is the game you chose, you can't call for a rules change the minute the opposition scores a goal even if that seems to be your MO.  So, live with it, or shut up, or best yet get out of the race. 

I can not wait for this political season to end. I am sick of the stupidity, arrogance, entitlement and exclusiveness of this bunch of contenders.

As you were,

Jay

Radicalization?

Hypnotized for Death - Art by Jay Johnson

Radicalization. Is that a new word or is it just now coming into popular usage?  It seems to be a term that is exclusively associated with Islamic jihad or fatwa these days. Christians don't use the word radicalization, they call it "being saved".  It is the moment you accept Jesus as a personal Savior and  become one of the flock.  It means you will stop living by the ways of the world and live the way that Christian Clergy tell you is right. Because Christians are not radicals. They are doing God's work. They don't kill and  bomb innocent people.  Really? Perhaps actions speak louder than words.

Christian religious leader and head of Virginia's Liberty University Jerry Falwell, Jr.'s learned Christian opinion is: every student should carry a firearm on campus to kill Muslims if they try to attack. Donald Trump proposes that those professing Islamic Faith not be allowed to enter the USA. Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee state that if elected to office of the President, they will defer to the laws of the Christian Church over the laws of the Constitution.  In fact here is a link to and article by Alex Henderson a writer for AlterNet, on the top ten attacks of innocent people by "saved" Christians. It is interesting to note that this is not an article written after the recent rash of violence. This article was written in  2013. 

Robert Dear killed people at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs just weeks ago.  No one questioned when he was "saved".  In fact his religion never entered the picture. He was just a lone gun wing-nut who was insanely blinded by a lie. 

As for the San Bernardino shooters, we are trying to identify the moment they were "radicalized".  Was it the wife who radicalized the husband or the other way around. Did they become "radicals" here in this country or did they travel to the Middle East. They are not wing-nut killers they are "radicalized terrorists".  Except for the adjectives we use, what is the difference. I don't think the people who were killed in these attacks care how you describe their murder, they are dead either way.  

I think it was a teacher named Jesus who said, "Take the log out of your own eye so you can see better to remove the speck from your neighbor's eye." The only side God takes is the one of justice, equality, love, Independence and celestial inclusion. The principle of omnipotent good does not qualify the rule of Thou shall not kill. Does it say, "Thou shall not kill, Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or friends, or enemies or infidels? No is simply says don't kill, one could argue that even means animals. 

So before we open internment camps for the "radicalized" let's realize that most of the terror we are experiencing is not from the blindness of Islam but the intolerance of Christians.

As you were,

Jay

Il Duce and El Douche

He was just a joke with some crazy ideas until he was elected. Cautionary tale?

fas·cism

noun: fascism; noun: Fascism; plural noun: Fascisms

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government 
2. and social organization.
3. synonyms:

   authoritarianism, totalitarianism,  dictatorship, despotism, autocracy;  nationalism, xenophobia, racism,  antiSemitism; jingoism, isolationism;