Something on my Mind: They're Only Acting (1)

I have found that one of life's greatest pleasures for me has been acting. Over the years, usually through grade school, I have played some interesting roles. In recent years, I have had a part in two movies: In one, I am old Isaac from the Bible in a western; and in the other, I am a Roman centurion, without a name. I think "Delirious" would have been a good one.

But acting is one thing, being an actor is another. Actors (and I include actresses; I just don't want to write both words repeatedly) may do well in front of the camera, but it's their lifestyle off site that I have massive issues with. Re-stated: in front of the camera they're somewhere between "okay" and "good"; outside, in the real world, they are out of control.

Like the antics of athletes that I wrote about recently, I think many actors are over-rated, mostly for off site persona. I have heard of many who are terrible to work with. I wonder where they get this sense that the sun rises and falls on them.

Only in Hollywood can an employee say things they don't mean, be given god-like status for any number of reasons, but mostly because of their acting prowess or the shape of their body. And get filthy rich (more filthy than rich) while they're at it.

They can be as promiscuous as possible, something seen as good thing by the general populace. And while they are at it, they can be as defiant or irreligious as possible, too, all simply because of their status.

And these are the same heroes and heroines that our kids look up to. And it's not just the kids that have created a cult following among Hollywood's elite. Are these healthy role models?

As stated three paragraphs ago, I like acting, but I like good actors (and by extension, good movies). There are many of the latter, though once they are involved in unnecessary sex, bad language, or gratuitous violence, I'm out.

I struggle with what goes on in front of the camera (see above). But I also struggle with what goes on off site. It gets worse when they start giving their opinion about any number of issues, most of which they know nothing about. And even worse yet, they're given some sort of credibility by the unthinking public.

It is so hard to believe how many people are duped by these dupes.

For people who never have an original line in their profession, how can they actually express an original thought about anything significant, issues such as pipelines, the oil patch, economics, abortion, or gender issues.

If you ever waste your time trying to listen to these people when they get in front of a mic, you'll hear them always bashing anything conservative. Their targets are values, families, worldviews, and, of course, the usual whipping boy, governments. This makes them very popular with their snowflake fans.

We are all entitled to our opinions, no problem there. I'm expressing mine here. This is what marks a free society, and that is why many of us conservatives are alarmed at the growing muzzlement (not a word, Maurice) we feel these days. That's why it is so ironic that those with really nothing positive or substantial to say are not muzzled.

Many of the actors and actresses have so little content, yet generate so much talk. And that's only when they are not reading other peoples' lines for them.

There's a lot of bad actors out there, in more ways than one.

Something on my Mind: Karate Kid, You Not

The most recent buzz around our house is a brand-new, weekly karate class. My youngest got it in his head that he wanted to try it, so he's trying (and liking) it. It calls for a quick trip to Lethbridge every Saturday, but it's worth the ride...so far.

He has just started, so there's a bit of a pattern of what happens for the hour-long class, and it runs something like this (with a touch of hyperbole added):

1. I drop my son off, then flee to do some necessary shopping, before the violence starts;

2. that is, of course, after I bowed to Master Suzuki, and grunt appropriately;

3. I return in time to pick him up (my son, that is), and head back to the sticks.

I don't know if my boy is being groomed to be my bodyguard or my assassin. Or neither. Maybe it's just for the exercise and to get out of the house.

There was some talk there about different degrees in a black belt. Or something like that. Big deal: I have one degree and about four black belts. Apparently I misunderstood.

Master Suzuki is an interesting study. He's a working stiff by day (electrician, if I recall), but a karate instructor by weekend. I wonder how he reacts to a client not paying his bill? A chop here or there? I'm sure he bows when he gets his cheque.

I applaud (now I'm serious, not wisecracking) anyone who works at a real job, then adds a hobby to help others. And I can assure you, he can't be in it for the money. He's hardly covering his gas to get to and from the centre, plus its rental.

In fact, it's really admirable that he puts himself out for so few kids, because there are only two kids in my son's class, and only one in the next one.

Word is out that they will amalgamate the first two classes, which makes sense, but that will still mean there are only three kids in the class. At that rate, the money is still the same, but he will save time and rent for that unused extra hour.

My son will be given his kimono the next time he shows up. To me, it's a bland housecoat, but I'm not taking the class. If I were, I would have preferred one with Donald Duck figures; even "Frozen" would have worked for me.

And I use my housecoat for lounging, reading, or watching a movie—vegging, if you will. The kimono that Suzuki has his students use is for the complete opposite purpose, namely, moving, thrashing, twisting, and other karate-type gestures. I think that if a kimono had a lion or gorilla silkscreened on it, it would be fitting.

And the belt: Mine usually holds my pants up, whereas the karate one holds the kimono in. The colours are the difference: black, I get; I'm just not sure what my brown belt means—that I can't find my black one?

People like me think there's a lot of damage to be done if one becomes an accomplished "karate kid" and loses control. That hardly happens, I understand. Apparently there's a lot more to it than that. I don't know what it is, but it has a philosophical and traditional element to it, one that involves honour and respect, accomplishments and success.

My black belt represents relief—that my pants won't fall down.

I'm not sure if the contact (fist on chest) feels any softer if Party A thrashes the you-know-what out of Party B. Who actually gets hurt when A touches B? Maybe that's where the expression "this hurts me more than it hurts you" came from, though I doubt it.

I am hoping my son will learn some self-defense tricks for the years to come. He doesn't really need them for his older brothers, as most have moved away. I just hope he doesn't use them on me when I ask him to do some chores:

"Son, wash dishes please, especially the ones with mould." Whack to the knee. "Son, pick up those socks that have been there for a week." Chop to the neck. "Son (if I'm still breathing), shut the door on your way out." Thrash, as he tosses me through that door.

Maybe if I could get him to bow to me like he bows to his instructor it would be worth it all.

Something on my Mind: The Business and Entertainment of Sports (2)

So much for the business side of sports. What about the entertainment side?

I say "entertainment," and you think cheerleaders. You're partly right, but it sounds like you're lost in the '70s. If it's any consolation, so am I. Some might say that we've come a long since then, though I may disagree.

Anything that entertains the fans before, during, or after the game, falls under that category of "entertainment." Even when I go to 'Canes games, there are gift cards to be given away and free food if a certain amount of goals are scored; then there's the kissing cam, muscle cam, and singing country music cam.

I pray to God that they never focus on me: I don't kiss in public, I have no muscles, and I think modern country music is, well, I best not print what I think of it.

At other venues, there are tailgate parties, coupon for sponsors after the game, weekends away through lotteries for winners, 50-50 for those at the game, car displays on the ice in between periods, million dollar baskets if one can hit the net with the hole in it from the centre (and the same for placekicking from mid-field), and the list of fun and games goes on and on.

I'm just combining various sports, at random. I know which is which and I trust you do, too. So, no, Maurice, you can't have a tailgate party in February at a hockey game (try football in July), and no, again, you can't punt a ball at a basketball game (again, maybe in July at a football stadium).

Then there are the merchandise options galore for the consumer, er, fan. In jerseys alone, I think the Raptors (aka Canada's team) have five options they can either wear or sell—just not at the same time. There are major bucks in jersey sales, with suckers, er, fans, ready and willing to buy everyone of them.

I am focusing on jerseys for the purpose of brevity. If you ever have a slow night, trace the jersey history of any professional hockey team over, say, the past thirty years. Consider the colour logo design of the Vancouver Canucks, as an example. Very intriguing...and lucrative.

I know the above comments border on the business side of things, but it's actually entertainment, with the bent on bringing in people, keeping them happy (= entertained), and making tons of cash at the same time.

Some team should develop a new theme song, namely, "Ka-ching, Ka-ching." (It goes to the tune of "Sh-boom, Sh-boom.")

The NHL all-star game and the NFL Super Bore, er, Bowl, are cases in point. I suppose somewhere in the midst of the clamour of the halftime ruckus at the Super Bowl, or the hullabaloo of every NHL all-star weekend, there is a game. There's playing before the game, playing the games, then playing after game. It's gets a little overwhelming.

Can there be an actual college football game without the marching band? I didn't think so, either. Any team worth anything will have its own mascot, and sometimes it is actually more entertaining than the game itself. I can't comment on anything to do with the NBA because I don't watch it or follow it at all.

By the way, is Lew Alcindor still playing?

So my simple point is that we have turned basic sports into both a business conglomerate and Hollywood production. Is that bad? I don't think we have a "good" or "bad" discussion here. It's more, "Is it healthy? Wise? Meaningful?"

I answer all those questions in the negative. And I also see it as a refection on where our culture is going, and what the values it's embracing. Glitzy and ditzy are the order of the day, and the wilder, the better.

At this stage of my life, I like watching and analyzing most sports, and one of life's few pleasures. As this pattern of business and entertainment increases, I see a weird scene: hundreds, even thousands, of fans (who need the exercise) sitting on their respective duffs, watching the twelve or twenty-two players (who don't need the exercise) run, dash, and skate.

Something will have to give, and I fear it will actually be the fans. By the time it has all come crumbling down, the players will get the stardust, owners will get the gold dust, but the fans will get nothing but mere dust.

Maybe it's time to focus on something tame, like dart-throwing, bowling, or table tennis. I'm sure it would take a couple of decades to corrupt them.