The View from Chuckonia

An Egg of Truth for Easter

2011-04-24T09:38:00.001-05:00

Today's post is another simple one - pre-written two thousand years ago by God via the penmanship of our friends Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

From the twenty-eighth chapter of Matthew's Gospel:
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you.

From the sixteenth chapter of Mark's Gospel:
4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: He is risen; He is not here: behold the place where they laid Him.
7 But go your way, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him, as He said unto you.

And from the twenty-fourth chapter of Dr. Luke's Gospel:
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee,
7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
8 And they remembered His words,
9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

Notice a pattern? HE IS RISEN. That says it all. Happy Easter, friends. Celebrate and be blessed.

Nothin' But the Music, Track 3

2011-04-17T16:13:00.010-05:00

Last night, I enjoyed a fun, high-energy night of great music from the legendary Spinners in downtown Nashville. Wow! Those guys didn't miss a beat and reminded me with every song why they were such hitmakers during the greatest years of classic R&B. With two original members and three new additions keeping the music alive, they took the audience back and had us singing and dancing in the aisles. In tribute to such a fun night, allow me to share my favorite Spinners tunes.
"Could It Be I'm Falling In Love" - The Spinners were masters of high-tempo love songs, and this is no exception. Not quite as fast-paced as some, it still has a beat you may not slow-dance to, but you can feel its rhythm with every line. This song had special meaning for me years ago when I was young and in love and is still my favorite memory of the group. They opened last night's show with it, too.
"Then Came You" - This great song, which the Spinners did with Dionne Warwick, is a 70s staple about first love. In this clip, they give their 1974 hit an 80s flair. Gotta love it!
"Mighty Love" - The Spinners did two great songs about the "reality" of love. This is an upbeat take on the topic of pursuing true, mighty, love.
"Love Don't Love Nobody" - Here's the other great Spinners hit on the "reality" of love. A lot slower and more serious, Philippe put his heart and soul into his lead on this one. In her 1994 album "Just For You," Gladys Knight also included this song in her acclaimed "End of the Road Medley."
"One of A Kind (Love Affair)" - There are many songs that, to me, incite a natural and involuntary reflex to blast the car stereo volume, turn the steering wheel into my drum, and sing (poorly) at the top of my lungs. This is one such song. It has a great beat and good lyrics that talk about the power of love (before Huey Lewis did) whether it lasts or not.
"I'll Be Around" - One of the great breakup songs, this follows in the footsteps of "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" and would be the R&B equivalent to Ronnie Milsap's "I Wouldn't Have Missed It For The World." On the "Our Kind of Soul" album, Daryl Hall and John Oates did a smooth cover of it.
"Working My Way Back to You/Forgive Me Girl" - Love song or not, this falls under the fun song category to me. Though I enjoy both, I think the Spinners take on "Working My Way Back to You" surpasses that of the Four Seasons.
"Cupid/I've Love You For A Long Time" - Another fun song, this one was made for a group like the Spinners and reminds me that there isn't another like them anymore. This clip is less-than-high quality, but it's recent and shows how much they still rock.
"Rubberband Man" - The ultimate fun song in the Spinners' collection, this has been used in numerous commercials, TV shows, and films. It is the song with which the guys closed their show, and left us wanting more, last night. Get down, my friends!

Where There's A Bill, There's A Way

2011-01-15T19:30:00.004-06:00

As 2011 begins, I am reminded that a new day has truly dawned in Tennessee. In 2008, when most of America leaned further to the left and turned bluer by the vote, Tennessee developed a red glow and began paving the way for a "red storm" in 2010. Now, we're more Republican than ever. With two Senators and seven of nine U.S. Representatives carrying the Republican banner in Washington, Tennessee will be a state that projects strong conservatism to the federal government. In Nashville this week, we have introduced the Volunteer State to her new Republican Governor, a 20-Republican-strong Senate, and a 64-Republican-strong (nearly two-thirds) House of Representatives. The state will also continue to benefit from the leadership and service of a Republican Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Comptroller of the Treasury. I am excited.
Like any business, organization, family, or institution, Tennessee needed to revitalize itself. Through the care and action of the voters, we are experiencing that revitalization now. We have seen its fruits take shape this week, beginning with the opening of the General Assembly on Tuesday, featuring the election of the first female Speaker of a legislative chamber in Tennessee's history, and then with the Inauguration of Governor Bill Haslam earlier today (watch him take the oath and address the state here).
I realize that I did not write about Bill Haslam's candidacy for Governor after the August primary; nor did I write of his victory after November 2nd. For this I apologize and offer only the reason that I was politically worn out in general and chose not to write much on any campaign or candidate for a while. However, while my original loyalty in the gubernatorial primary was to my friend and candidate of choice, Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, in no way did I shy away from supporting Knoxville's Mayor after his nomination. Mayor Haslam's combination of business and executive experience will be an unbeatable and invaluable combination in moving our state forward through the challenges ahead and out of the fog of the current recession. As a citizen and state employee, I look forward to watching him lead and, in what way I can, working with him through the years to come. Governor-Elect Haslam is a truly good man and a good example to leaders in many capacities. He is a good listener and, I believe, will learn from the legislative leadership as they begin their new term of service together.
Hold your breath; make a wish; count to three. The best is just up ahead for Tennessee.

Christmas - It's All About the First Six Letters

2010-12-25T09:53:00.008-06:00

No commentary today. Today's blog was written long ago by God and through the penmanship of Dr. Luke. From the second chapter of his Gospel:

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the
shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Celebrate and be blessed today. Merry Christmas!

The Ghost of Christmas TV's Past

2010-12-24T13:43:00.005-06:00

On this beautiful Christmas Eve, I wanted to share a favorite memory of my childhood (frequent readers of this blog probably don't think my inner child ever shuts up anyway). My brother and I grew up in an era when puppets were still found in primetime shows, there were more G and PG rated films in theaters than PG-13 and R, and toys took less time to assemble and more time to play with than they do now. Also, after traditional 2D animation (Pixar didn't exist yet), claymation was king. For our generation, it was a fascinating 3-dimensional medium that gave us such stars as the California Raisins and those cool extras on "Pee-Wee's Playhouse" on Saturday mornings. In December 1987, it also gave us a charming and memorable Christmas Special from director Will Vinton which featured some two humorous hosts introducing cool versions of classic Christmas carols and hymns. "A Claymation Christmas Celebration" aired in the years soon after its 1987 debut, but has not been seen in many years. Thanks to the miracle of technology and the power of YouTube, other 80s kids like me have been kind enough to preserve it. So, for your Christmas Eve viewing pleasure, here's something that stirs memories for me and, I hope, for you. Enjoy!
A Claymation Christmas - Part 1 (featuring "We Three Kings" and the "Carol of the Bells")
A Claymation Christmas - Part 2 (featuring "O Christmas Tree" and "Angels We Have Heard On High")
A Claymation Christmas - Part 3 (featuring "Joy to the World" and "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer")
A Claymation Christmas - Part 4 (featuring "Here We Go A-Wassailing" and a California Raisins commercial with Ray Charles)
Special thanks to YouTube user Hiramcook for post these high-quality clips of Claymation Christmas.

Nothin' But the Music, Track 2

2010-12-22T01:10:00.012-06:00

Since I share a birthday with Robin and, the late, Maurice Gibb, I thought it fitting to pay tribute today to one of the greatest brother acts, as well as one of the greatest songwriting trios, in music. Along with their brother Barry, twins Robin and Maurice, were the Bee Gees. Though often only associated with disco music and the disco era, I believe the Bee Gees, as songwriters and performers, are among the most versatile figures in music. They thought of themselves more as writers than performers and proved it by writing hits for other artists long before they would record the songs themselves. Toward the end of the disco era, they also helped their little brother, the late Andy Gibb, launch a successful solo career. He often recorded songs penned by the elder three. As a tribute to the Brothers Gibb (That's where the B and G come from. Some think it was just Barry having a complex on group naming day.) I'd like to feature a few Bee Gees songs that are among my favorites and some that were bigger hits for other artists as well. Happy birthday, Robin and Maurice. Let's pick out our birthday anthems today.

"More Than A Woman" - I primarily feature this because it was the first Bee Gees song I ever heard as a kid. As many of my peers were introduced to great music via film, I first heard this song as the 80s greatest robot, Johnny Five, danced to it in the classic flick "Short Circuit."
"Nights On Broadway" - I don't know exactly what this song means, but I think it's fun. It's also one whose performance evolved over the years (the featured clip is a 1975 spot on "Midnight Special"). If you watch it in concert clips from the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s, it always seems different. It has a cool tune and distinctively features all three brothers' voices (Maurice usually hits the highest notes in this). Also, as many Bee Gees songs now have, it connects to a modern pop-culture phenomenon, as it is the songs which was manipulated for the fictional, Saturday Night Live "Barry Gibb Talk Show" bits, starring Jimmy Fallon and Justin Timberlake as Barry and Robin. Awesome use of the song.
"Too Much Heaven" - This is a beautiful 70s love tune and really shows the range and extent of "the Barry Gibb singing voice" (a concept so famous that it's almost a cliche).
"Tragedy" - This is an interesting take on the "love has ended" or "lonely and without love" song concept which I wish we had more good examples of. I own the concert DVD from which this performance is taken. The "One Night Only Show" is power-packed. Check it out. It is also significant that "Tragedy" and "Too Much Heaven" were written in the same afternoon. That was a pretty profitable day for the brothers.
"Lonely Days" - As a kid, I always got into the beat and transitions of this song. It almost doesn't seem like a Bee Gees kind of tune. But, then again, their versatility easily shines through.
"Alone" - From their Still Waters album, this is one of the Bee Gees' late-90s songs which I have come to enjoy since first hearing it on the "One Night Only" DVD. It's a great display of the brothers' harmony.
"I Just Want to Be Your Everything" - Tragically, Andy Gibb's life was cut too short for him to match the collection of hits that his brothers had. But, he made some great music. Here he is singing one of his biggest hits with Dionne Warwick, a good friend of the Gibbs.

No tribute or collection of Bee Gees hits would be complete without "Jive Talkin'" or "Stayin' Alive," but rather than go on about them individually, check out this cool merger remix.

Now, let's look at some hits written by the Bee Gees for other artists and a Bee Gees hit later recorded by another trio:
"Islands in the Stream" - To me, this is the most recognizable hit written, though not originally recorded, by the Bee Gees. Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton always seemed to have fun with it, as did its writers when they performed it.
"Heartbreaker" - Dionne Warwick was a perfect candidate for a Bee Gees number and gave this tune a very smooth, jazzy sound. However, the Bee Gees themselves did a great, while slightly different version - particularly in this 2002 mix.
"Rest Your Love On Me" - When the Bee Gees write a song, people want to sing it. When Conway Twitty sang a song, people stopped and listened. Thus, we find the most country-perfect piece of writing by the Bee Gees and a great song for Twitty.
"How Can You Mend A Broken Heart" - Straight from Memphis, Reverend Al Green gives an awesome soulful twist to one of the Bee Gees' best slow songs about love and loss. Classic!
"Emotion" - This is a rare case of a song having been a Bee Gees hit in its first life and then being redone in recent years. Destiny's Child did a great job with it and also produced a very touching video to go with it.

This is just the tip of the ice berg. If you think the Bee Gees are nothing but "Saturday Night Fever," look again. They've got something for everyone. Maurice, though we miss you, we wish you and Robin a happy birthday. Keep rockin', Chuckonia!

Happy Birthday, Benson

2010-11-30T22:08:00.004-06:00

I recently began a ritual of frequently posting songs or film or TV clips to my Facebook page in commemoration of the birthdays of famous people. Today, I posted a link to the pilot episode of Benson in honor of the 83rd birthday of the show's star, Robert Guillaume. It's a great episode, and I recommend you watch it. Benson was an excellent show, running from the late-1970s to the mid-1980s. It was funny, often poignant, and contains many fond signs of the times. Given the political (yet bi-partisan) nature of the show, several episodes were written to make a point as much as to make the audience laugh (sometimes more so). One particular episode that made me stop and think in a way that transcends the show's age and timeframe is episode 22 from the first season, "Takin' It To the Streets." In this episode, the naive yet caring and genuinely dedicated Governor Gene Gatling wants to better understand what the people of his state (which is never named in the show's seven-year run) think and feel and need in order to better serve them. He explores different ways to communicate with ordinary citizens on a personal level and finally decides to mingle with people in their local hangouts. Benson worries about the plan but knows he can't argue with the Governor for long. Why should he? Wouldn't we all prefer it if our elected officials interacted with us in such a way more often? I think every elected official (and even the appointed ones) should take Governor Gatling's message and intent to heart and think about how to better understand the common/normal/regular/everyday folks they serve. On the flipside, as the episode shows toward the end of the bar scene, citizens need to be willing to honestly communicate with their leaders as well, and they must ALWAYS be prepared to exercise their ultimate authority at the ballot box. Watch the episode and tell me what you think. It's funny and thoughtful. While you're at it, watch the entire first season. It's a great DVD set.
Happy birthday, Benson. You did your imaginary state proud.

Nothin' But the Music, Track 1

2010-11-13T22:48:00.001-06:00

Last night, I watched "Behind the Music Remastered" on VH1 Classic. This time, they updated their depiction of the story of Daryl Hall and John Oates, the biggest-selling duo in pop music history. Like many great artists whom I now follow, I came to appreciate their work later in my life, and I am continually impressed and intrigued by their range as writers and their versatility as performers. From their work, I can find songs for any mood and from multiple genres. As solo performers, Daryl and John are amazing. As a duo, they are a musical force to be reckoned with. I had the privilege of seeing John Oates in Nashville recently, and he didn't fail to deliver style, depth, and showmanship. After a string of top-10s in the 1970s and 80s, Hall & Oates took a break from hit-making and eventually took a break from working together on a consistent basis through much of the 90s. However, in recent years, the Internet and a new generation of fans and devoted independent artists have given new life to some (slightly) old favorites. I'm glad that such a powerful pair as Hall & Oates are seeing new success, both as a duo and in their solo careers, because they really are two writers and performers who care more about their love of music than the success it brings. In honor of the dynamic duo of modern music, here's some of my favorites from their years in the business (this is certainly not "the" favorites list, I don't think I could honestly rank them). Enjoy!

"She's Gone" - Written by a depressed John Oates when he was stood up for a New Year's Eve date, it would become a very profitable lonely night for he and Daryl. This song became an anthem for breakups, heartbreaks, and depressed guys (sometimes including me) everywhere and has been included in several feature films over the years. From their second album, Abandoned Luncheonette, as well as 1977's No Goodbyes album (when the single hit #8 on the charts), the guys sing it in 1997 in this clip.
"Watch Your Back" - Throughout much of the 60s and 70s, it was almost a rule that every recording artist had to have some sort of protest or anti-war song (i.e. "Friendship Train" by Gladys Knight & the Pips, "War" by Edwin Starr, etc.). This sort of serves as the Hall & Oates entry in that set. From the album War Babies.
"Rich Girl" - Originally written about a stuck-up man, "Rich Guy" didn't quite have the right ring to it, so it became "Rich Girl" and gave Hall & Oates their first #1 hit. This is one of many songs that sets off an automatic instinct in me to turn the car radio volume up incredibly high and sing along, regardless of what else I am doing (I knew I had that wreck for a reason). From the Bigger Than Both of Us album, the linked performance is from the classic "Midnight Special" television show of the 1970s.
"Head Above Water" - I think it's a shame that this song didn't/doesn't get more exposure. It has become my favorite piece from the Private Eyes album. To me, it speaks to anyone on the rise in life (or anyone who wants to be) or just anyone who's trying to keep their... you guessed it - head above water.
"Possession Obsession" - Some say this is one of the quintessential songs about the 80s as "the decade of excess." Maybe. But I say it's just a really cool 80s pop song and a great (rare) showing of John Oates' lead-singing talent. From the album Big Bam Boom, here it is in a concert clip from Tokyo in 1988.
"Change of Season" - This song has a lot of depth. I think of it as a song about looking for the best in yourself and your life, but it very much falls into the "open to interpretation" category. Check it out and see what it says to you. The linked clip is from another show in Tokyo and the song comes from the album called (get this) Change of Season.

This is but a mere sampling of the amazing repertoire of Hall & Oates. If you're not familiar with their work (loser) or want to see what else they have to offer beyond the standard hits, check out their recently-released 4-disc career-spanning collection Do What You Want, Be What You Are. It's awesome. Keep on rocking, Chuckonia!

With All Our Humble Thanks

2010-11-11T14:51:00.000-06:00

Today is Veterans Day. Along with Independence Day and Memorial Day, this is one of the most American days of the year and one that should not be taken lightly. How in the world can any of us properly express our gratitude to those who have served or serve today, whether at home or abroad, in defense of our country? How can we ever properly honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf? I wish there was such a way, and I wish we were always cognizant of our need as a people to extend our thanks and love to these individuals. In the meantime, we should take any opportunity available to honor and appreciate the brave men and women who grant me the freedom to write this blog without censorship, to join my brothers and sisters of faith in worship on Sunday or at any other time we please, to do as I will with my financial and personal assets, and to question or petition my government when circumstances and conviction require it. For these and so many other freedoms, we owe an immense debt to thousands of fellow Americans who have fought for us, usually without knowing us, against tremendous odds and against dangers they could not have imagined themselves. I am glad to see that more tributes to our veterans are being offered by America's corporate community this year than ever before. Several restaurant chains are allowing veterans to dine with them for free today, while many parks and other recreational locations are offering them free admission, as well as a host of other discounts and freebies across the country. All of these are great ideas and, hopefully, a trend that will grow. But a personal word of thanks from a fellow citizen is still one of the greatest acts of appreciation that we can offer. So perhaps, when a veteran is being offered a free meal by his waiter or waitress at Chili's or Applebee's or wherever he or she chooses to dine today with his family, someone at a nearby table will overhear them and take that prompt to offer their thanks. It only takes a handshake and the words "thank you" to remind a brave soldier that we recognize what they did and we realize what it means to us. This is appreciation at its humble, meager best, but it's a start. And while we may have more opportunity to identify those veterans who deserve our thanks on a day like today, don't let it end when November 11 passes. Anytime you have the chance, thank someone who put on the uniform and decided (whether voluntarily or by compulsion) to turn their life over to the fight for freedom, even if only for a little while. Let every day be like Veterans Day.
I thank all those whom I have known and whom I have never met who are currently serving both overseas and here at home, as well as those who have served in the past and are still here making America great by their active citizenship, and especially those who laid down their lives so that many of us would not have to, for their great service and dedication to a country, an idea, and a life that we call the United States of America.
And now, for a slightly unexpected touch of honor and fun on this Veterans Day, here is a salute to the troops concert clip from Kiss (not in costume and makeup). Apparently, they like to rock and roll all night with the soldiers as much as with a concert audience here at home. Enjoy and sing along. Happy Veterans Day!

Not To Give Them The Boot, But...

2010-07-28T23:00:00.000-05:00

As promised in my pro-Ramsey piece, I would like to lay out some of my reservations about Mayor Haslam and Representative Wamp in Tennessee's 2010 Republican Gubernatorial Primary. I am personally acquainted with each of them and have looked at their records and resumes as well as possible and will give my general perspectives here. Remember, this is not to say that I will refuse to support one of them, should they receive the Party's nomination, in the November general election. I simply think there are positive and less-than-positive points to consider when weighing candidates, and I want my readers to be aware of those items. I welcome your comments and feedback on this, and any of my ramblings, at any time.

Mayor Bill Haslam of Knoxville: Mayor Haslam is one of the nicest guys I have ever met. I actually believe the portrayal of him that TV and his campaign materials present of a friendly, honest, committed family man who loves his community. He'd probably give you the shirt off his back and, with his money, maybe buy you a whole clothing store to go with it. As much as that matters in a Governor, it isn't quite enough. And, don't be surprised by those who translate that mild-mannered persona (he keeps his cool very well) into the potential for wimpiness. He has great managerial experience in both the private and public sectors, but I can't help but see a Pilot gas pump in my mind when I think of his private sector role. It simply isn't a good vision these days, along with the price sign shining above the Pilot station in my mind. Furthermore, when speaking of his business credentials, some ads remind us that Pilot Oil began as one roadside service station several years ago. That may be, but I don't see Bill Haslam as a small businessman. By the time he had a hand in the family company, it was a multi-million dollar enterprise. Well-run on the road, but not well-put in the commercial. In the public sector, Haslam has also seen much success. Knoxville has many advantages and, currently, the lowest unemployment of "the big four" (largest cities in Tennessee). However, as I mentioned in the last post, only having been a chief executive means that Mayor Haslam has no voting record on many issues that Governors must address while Mayors are able to avoid. This could present some surprises when (assumedly) a more conservative General Assembly sends bills to the would-be Governor's desk that make him sweat. How often do you hear Mayor Haslam speak about social issues or anything remotely close? Very seldom, and only when he is asked. Look back at the few wide-range broadcast debates and forums in which the gubernatorial candidates have participated. The moderators in those events rarely asked many social issue questions, but, when they did, sparked shorter, less detailed responses from the Mayor. When he is stumping, the focus remains on the budget, jobs, and education - three vitally important issues. But, are they the only issues people want to hear?

Speaking of how Mayor Haslam fits into my "three models of a Governor" theory, let us look at his businessman-politico side. Bill Haslam, while having given much money to Republican candidates, has contributed to Democrats in political elections in somewhat recent years (among other places, he admits to this in the last Nashville debate at Belmont) - including former Vice President Al Gore and current 5th District Congressman Jim Cooper. He has sought to defend and/or avoid this topic in recent interviews, but the record is public and unavoidable. In a poor show of spontaneous strategy, he answered a question posed by Nashville Channel 5's Pat Nolan regarding his contributions to Al Gore with "I just don't remember." In politics, that is an almost suicidal answer and the equivalent to "I don't want to talk about it." People cannot always receive honesty, but they will demand openness. Mayor Haslam, you cannot avoid answering such a question. Granted, he hasn't always avoided it and has used excuses like their running unopposed at the times of his donations or that he was helping a fellow Tennessean out. Al Gore's ability to claim being a Tennessean is marginal and highly debatable. Ultimately, contributing to candidates on both sides of the aisle is typically going to be considered good business. But, not all good businessmen choose to run for public office. Therefore, the Republican voters are forced to ask themselves if they want to elect a good businessman or a conservative manager of the people's business. I believe that such a conservative manager would make the people's business and the defense of his principles (whether professionally prudent or not) his priority whether in elected office or not.

The July 18th edition of the Nashville City Paper did an interesting expo on Mayor Haslam. While I can't say it is completely negative, it is certainly not a glowing endorsement - a fairly realistic assessment. I suggest you read it with his lack of comfort on some issues in mind. To read the article by Stephen George, click here.

U.S. Representative Zach Wamp of Chattanooga: While Mayor Haslam is one of the nicest and most at-ease people I have ever met in the political realm, Rep. Wamp is one of the most energetic, intense, and assertive (often to the point of aggressive) that I have encountered. As a Congressman, he has been a well-spoken and out-spoken advocate of many Republican principles on Capitol Hill in Washington. I'm just not sure that his brand of spokesmanship is the material we need on Nashville's Capitol Hill. Simply put, Wamp is a bit over-the-top. Those who know me well are thinking, "Is Chuck really saying this about someone else (or is he looking in a weird mirror)?" Yes, I am. I'm also not running for Governor this year. Rep. Wamp amplifies and intensifies everything he says and does, sometimes to the point of annoyance or lack of believability. This is unfortunate, as he is a very passionate and talented politician. He has a temper, though. And that temper has been found along the campaign trail in frequent negative manifestations of his high-intensity approach to things. It's a natural progression. I cannot say that I have experienced it first-hand, but I have been on the receiving end of his take-charge attitude at an inappropriate time during an event in which I was heavily involved. Without telling the whole story, I simply decided that even a Congressman needs to think ahead before trying to control the timing and staging of an event when he is already at it. I bear no significant ill will for that particular situation, but it got me thinking. It also got me questioning friends who work for and support the other gubernatorial candidates. I heard several similar, and worse, stories. Some of them even made it to print in an article from the June 27th Nashville City Paper which I encourage you to read (click here). I have personally verified some of these accounts since reading the piece by Ken Whitehorse and Stephen George.

On some issues, I also question Rep. Wamp's judgement. He has spent 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives - where all spending bills originate. Why couldn't some reduction bills have started there too? And couldn't he have started them? He has never served a day in the state government and, yet, wants to serve as chief executive at a level of government where the budget MUST be (not should be, can be, or could be) balanced. I find it a dangerous gamble to consider a candidate who has had, and taken, many opportunities to increase our nation's debt without having to find ways to actually pay it back. (I will also inject that I find it shameful that Dave Ramsey, a man who tells us to chop up our credit cards, is endorsing the only candidate who has helped increase the debt of every Tennessean from a place outside the state.) Would he know how to propose a balanced or even balanceable budget to the legislature each year? It would take longer for him to learn than we can stand to wait.

On the matter of Rep. Wamp's expressions of his faith, I must also venture a thought. I am a proud Christian and prefer supporting candidates who are as well. I believe that all three of my Party's major gubernatorial candidates are honest about their faith. But, once again, this is an issue on which Wamp amplifies and intensifies himself to the point that it makes me think he is using his faith as a campaign tool and trying to drown out Mayor Haslam and Lt. Gov. Ramsey's expressions of their own faith. I cannot speak specifically on Mayor Haslam, but I know Ron Ramsey to be a dedicated Christian man who was a long-time Sunday School teacher in the Methodist church. I don't need him to work it into every answer at a debate or get a millionaire Christian recording artist to tell it to me in a commercial. That is something I prefer hearing in a modestly humble manner and, preferably, from a real person. Rep. Wamp loves the Lord. I believe that. But the more he shouts it in that "in your face, I'm Zach Wamp" way, the more it sounds like he is using it to hide or drown out something (perhaps, his arrests and known drug use) or divert discussions from the finer points of the issues (like how he will pay for all that 20/20 vision he and his optometrist are planning for us).

As a final note, I want to share a link to a comparative grid of the three candidates that was put together by the Fayette and Sumner County Tea Parties. Several Tea Party groups and leaders across the state are supporting Lt. Gov. Ramsey in this primary. I am not a Tea Party member myself, but the information here was carefully gathered and put together very well. It is not purely negative toward Ramsey's opponents, but presents issues by which their support of Ramsey was inspired. To view the document, click here.

As always, thank you all for reading my ramblings and ideas. Tennesseans have many important decisions to make this summer and fall, but I believe the most important of these is to select a capable and qualified Governor. I hope you will choose my candidate, Ron Ramsey. However, I welcome an exchange of ideas and your personal correspondence on this and any other issue. For now, this is how we see the view from Chuckonia.

I Don't Wear Boots, But I Vote Ramsey

2010-07-19T21:33:00.000-05:00

During my final semester of college, the Spring of 2006, I had the honor and pleasure to serve as an intern at Tennessee's State Capitol. More specifically, I served in the office of the state Senate's then-Majority Leader, Ron Ramsey. On day one, the two of us - though from opposite ends of the state, never having met before - became friends. I knew the months in front of me would be enjoyable, and they were. Senator Ramsey afforded me a rare, multi-faceted, fun view of Tennessee's government in action. I met a variety of interesting people, heard accounts of leaders past and present, and witnessed some of my state's modern history unfold. He was very supportive of me and encouraging in my endeavors both during and after the internship. In fact, when I was honored by my fellow interns to be elected Speaker of our mock legislative session, the first person to call and congratulate me within minutes of the vote was Senator Ramsey (though he had not been elected Speaker yet himself).

Senator Ramsey had worked hard in the years leading up to that session to build a Republican majority in the Senate. That majority grew in the following two election cycles and eventually sparked a Republican majority in the state House. It was eye-opening to see new trends developing and new leadership take hold and to learn that, as Ron says, "it truly matters who governs." When he was asked to run for Congress that year (I answered the phone for that one), he refused in order to usher in more change and build on the majority he had already begun. When I asked him why he refused the offer to run at the time, he simply said, "I don't want to run for Congress. I want to be Lieutenant Governor." And, he did. About one year after we first met, in January 2007, my friend became my Lieutenant Governor. I was proud and honored and very happy, both for him and for the future of my state. While I had great respect for the previous Lieutenant Governor, who can resist the pride you feel when you tell your friends, "I used to work for the Lieutenant Governor. I've brought him Diet Mountain Dew on the Senate floor before." It's pretty cool, right? Our friendship has continued in the years since then, and he is still the same down-to-earth, good-humored, good-natured man who welcomed me into his office as a member of his team when I was a pie-eyed college student a few years ago.

That is NOT why I support Ron Ramsey's candidacy for Governor of Tennessee.

If I had never interned for him, nor met him, I would still support Ron Ramsey as the most favorable candidate for Governor in this election. Granted, I have a bit more in-depth understanding of some of his views and his record, but my support of him and my friendship with him are separate notions in my mind. (My next post will explain some of my reasons for choosing not to support his Republican opponents in the primary.) Allow me to list a few of my reasons, along with some of Ron's issue positions, which lead me to this viewpoint.

The "type" of Governor we need now. - Tennessee's Governors typically come from one of three general categories:
1) The Congressman-turned-Governor model is more common in other states, but we see it often enough here. Ray Blanton and Don Sundquist are the last chief executives our state has "recruited" from the U.S. House. These types are often very knowledgeable of the federal government and the state's interaction with it and may have good luck acquiring the maximum resources from D.C. However, they are often blinded by Washington-style management as the model for all "lower" levels of government and forget that the day-to-day operation of our state's bureaucracy is very different, as is the culture of compromise between branches of government. This state's executive and legislative branches are often considered co-equal, and rightfully so. A Congressman-turned-Governor easily forgets that and may try to be more of a bully to the General Assembly than the people, the system, and his career can stand.
2) The large-city Mayor/corporate CEO model is the one of most recent memory, as it is what we see in Gov. Phil Bredesen. At times, it is an almost ideal scenario. The mayor of a city simply takes their craft to a higher level, overseeing more territory on a larger scale and managing more employees. Or, the CEO takes his talents of moving money and people around all over the state from the private sector to the public arena. It sounds pretty good, but there is still a gap in pre-existing knowledge of state government. Cities and counties can incur debt in ways the state cannot. Therefore, options they may want to employ wouldn't work or be allowed. Further, the CEO can forget that they are no longer selling a product or service and that their new "customers" come in the form of an often ungrateful public that is not as willing or required to provide a direct return on his investment. Those of the Mayor/CEO model are often issue-specific in their expertise and may struggle to yield to their advisers in the area of their own knowledge and/or struggle to find the proper advisers for those areas in which they lack knowledge and experience.
3) The straight-out-of-state-government model is what I believe is ideal at this time. Simply put, this is the model from which a Governor is prepared to go to work on the first day. Within those that qualify for this type, the ideal candidate would have experience as a member of both houses of the General Assembly (as there are significant differences), as a committee chairman (to understand issue-focused debate with less partisan flavor), as a party/caucus leader (to understand navigating political concerns and arguments with a partisan angle), and as a Speaker (to have a feel for managing the technical aspects of a branch of government). Ron has served in each of these roles. He is anything but a stranger to the legislative process. As soon as he is inaugurated, he could instantly shift from being a legislator negotiating with the Governor to pass meaningful initiatives to being the Governor listening to his former colleagues to craft worthwhile policy that benefits us all. In the midst of a crippling recession, with Washington breathing down our necks at every turn, and with a state that clearly seeks to buck the federal trend by growing more conservative as the country goes liberal, we need that kind of instantly-prepared experience-trained executive leading our state's government and protecting our hard-earned tax dollars.

Education: Many times, I feel that Ron's position on education is misunderstood. Due to current hype, he often ends up getting more questions about Pre-K than anything else. To these questions, he is heard opposing what is called "universal Pre-K" (not only available in every county, but required for every child). While I, personally, support Pre-K being available in every county and to any child whose parents choose to send them (this is not yet the case), I also do not think it should be required. That aside, I want my readers to understand that Ron's goal is to make sure that K-12 education gets the primary focus, as it should. There is now so much talk of expanding Pre-K and reforming higher education, that the core education program provided to us all gets neglected by those seeking new ideas and new money. Ron will, as he has, work toward the best education that our state can provide (including maintaining, at a minimum, the current Pre-K structure), but he wants that to come, first, from our elementary, middle, junior high, and high schools. He will work hard for the sake of the early years and higher ed as well, but he is a man of focus and, I believe, is focused on the right category of education. It is also worth noting that Ron is also a great advocate (the greatest among the gubernatorial candidates, in fact) of home-schooling in Tennessee, which has become an increasingly popular choice as an alternative to public education.

Traditional Values: While I believe that Mayor Haslam and Rep. Wamp are social conservatives themselves, Ron has a record to clearly back it up. Never having been a member of a legislative body, Mayor Haslam has no voting record to support his positions on social issues, but I take him at his word when he declares a conservative position. As a member of the U.S. House, Rep. Wamp has not made any sweeping progress on any of the social issues by which conservatives usually stand. Ron, on the other hand, helped pass Tennessee's traditional marriage constitutional amendment and has been a leader in the fight against frivolous abortions in the state. While the "abortion amendment" to our constitution is still in the works, Ron has led the push for its passage over his years in the Senate's leadership. It has now made it closer to final passage than at any point in its history. For those who count the Second Amendment (to the U.S. Constitution) as a social issue, Ron is hands-down the most dedicated and qualified candidate in terms of protecting those rights. I do not own a gun myself, but I firmly believe in a law-abiding citizen's right to own a firearm for personal and property protection. Ron believes that too, which is why he passed the bill in the 1990s to establish Tennessee's handgun carry permit system. Thanks to Ron, we are no longer the wild west and can provide proper training and information to law-abiding citizens who responsibly exercise their rights. He is also the only candidate for Governor this year with a handgun carry permit. It's kind of a Hair Club for Men thing. He's not only the creator of the permit system, but he's also a client.

Standing up to the federal government: This, naturally, is the part where Ron props his foot in front of the camera and tells you he is ready to give Washington the boot. I'm not here to rehash one of his commercials, but I do wish to note his general stance on standing up to Washington. Over half of Tennessee's annual budget consists of federal dollars given to the state for proper distribution. Obviously, Ron would never say "no thanks" to all things federal. However, when unnecessary strings are attached to federal dollars or when unfunded and grossly improperly thought-out mandates are handed down, Ron has the guts and the lack of federal loyalties to put up a fight. There's nothing wrong with that. And, Tennessee won't "go hungry" if he does. Many, I dare say most, of my fellow Republicans oppose Obamacare. I do too. And, I believe that Ron is prepared to take any legal steps available to oppose it and reduce the burden this very loaded legislation would place on Tennessee and Tennesseans. There are always possible unfunded mandates being considered in Washington and new conditions being placed on federal appropriations. Ron wants us as a state to look at each one carefully and resist short-term benefits with negative long-term costs. That's a pair of boots I am glad he wears.

Small businesses/jobs/the economy: One of the things I related to when I first met Ron was that he is a small businessman. I am a child of former small business owners; my mother is the child of small business owners; her father was the son of a small business owner. Nothing says hard work, drive, and creativity to me like the entrepreneurial spirit of an American business owner. By the time Ron was my age (I'm 26), he had started and ran a business (I certainly could not do that yet). By the time he was 30, he had started two and ran them both for several years. He still owns his realty office/auction house and, even as Lieutenant Governor and a gubernatorial candidate, conducts auctions in multiple states and works his enterprise. I can't understand how he does it, but I'm very impressed. That experience and that drive have made him one of the small business community's best friends in Tennessee politics. While supporting and understanding the role of large industry, Ron knows that local economies are stabilized by the small businesses that build faithful clientele, maintain local culture, and provide jobs while many large plants are lured overseas. As Governor, Ron will do everything he can to empower small business to continue this trend of local economic stability across the state. Primarily, he will stay out of their way by seeking to reduce red tape burdens, taxes, and the regulations that slow businesses down from doing what they do best.

These five general areas are at the core of my support of Lt. Gov. Ramsey's candidacy for Governor, but they are far from the only reasons. He is a good, honest, decent man who has worked hard to build a great family, two solid businesses, a stronger Republican party, and now wants to help us build the greatest Tennessee we can imagine. I know and respect all three of my party's candidates for Governor, but I am and shall remain very partial to Ron Ramsey. I hope you will learn more about him at http://www.teamronramsey.com/. I also welcome you to contact me to learn more about him (Prez_Chucko@hotmail.com). An important decision will be made on August 5, with another to follow on November 2. I hope you will join me in making the same decision - to make Ron Ramsey Tennessee's next Governor!

One Step Closer to the Big Game, Part 2

2010-07-14T21:50:00.000-05:00

On the morning of Tuesday, July 13, Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey and U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp engaged in a radio discussion/debate on Nashville's conservative talk radio station, Super Talk 99.7. Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam declined to participate, though he had joined these gentlemen for a televised debate in Nashville the previous night. Some of the issues discussed in that debate were revisited in the radio format; some new ones emerged as well. I believe Lt. Gov. Ramsey performed very well once again, and I encourage you to listen to the radio debate, watch the televised debate, and further investigate the plans and past experience of the candidates. But, most importantly, I remind you to VOTE in the August 5 primary and the November 2 general elections.
To listen to 99.7's July 13 debate, click here.

One Step Closer to the Big Game

2010-07-13T21:03:00.000-05:00

On Monday, July 12, the three Republicans and one Democrat running for Governor of Tennessee discussed the issues facing our state and made the case for their candidacies at a televised debate in Nashville. If you have not already watched the debate, I encourage you to do so, as a wide range of topics were covered and each candidate had the opportunity to present many points. Personally, I hope you will find Lt. Gov. Ramsey's views most favorable and that you will study his ideas more via the Internet and other sources. A debate is merely an abbreviated look at a campaign. I am proud to call Ron my candidate of choice and hope you will too! Regardless of your preference, I remind you all to either vote during early voting or on August 5th when the primaries occur. I will try to provide more in-depth commentary about my reasons for supporting Ramsey soon. In the meantime, please watch the July 12 debate and check out each candidate to learn more about the men who want to serve us.

Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey - www.teamronramsey.com
Mayor Bill Haslam - www.billhaslam.com
Congressman Zach Wamp - www.zachwamp.com
Mr. Mike McWherter - www.mikemcwherter.com

We STILL Are The World

2010-02-13T12:09:00.000-06:00

We in Chuckonia were heartbroken to hear of the devastating effects of the earthquakes that recently struck the island nation of Haiti. However, as with all great tragedy there has emerged much compassion, unity, and generosity from around the planet. While the greatest expressions of these ideals are the silent, unseen contributions of time, effort, supplies, and funds from "regular, everyday" folks, it has been a joy to see another special expression of help come at this time. 25 years after the original recording and charitable sale of the song "We Are The World," a new group of talented entertainers (including Gladys Knight, Celine Dion, Tony Bennett, Miley Cyrus, Fergie, Jamie Foxx, Jeff Bridges, Zac Brown, Snoop Dogg, Brian Wilson, and numerous others) have come together to celebrate the strength of the human spirit and to lend their time and talents to generate increased contributions for the victims of the Haiti disaster. Watch both music videos [original on YouTube - new on YouTube], remember where you were and how you felt the first time you heard this inspiring song, then feel it all over again as you enjoy the new and truly remarkable rendition of, what can now be called, a timeless classic. Then, most importantly, decide what YOU can do to help our neighbors to the south - there are plenty of ways. Even in this time of economic recession, we must do what we can individually and collectively to reach out to our fellow men and women. In 1985 or 2010, we STILL are the ones who make a brighter day.

Let's Not Hear It For The Boys

2010-01-31T20:31:00.000-06:00

Though it has been a while since we last spoke, I decided it was time to address an important issue (because I saw a commercial that disturbed me tonight) - sexism. Am I about to call someone or something out for being sexist? Not really. I'm going to be sexist. What can I say? It's my blog and I'll whine if I want to. But, this may be more a message for my fellow men. So, ladies, take this with a dash of salt, please.
Have y'all seen the new Kay Jewelers commercial? It sucks! Granted, most of their commercials do little to tickle my fancy, but I also don't go buying jewelry all that much either. However, this new one really gives me pause to wonder if they've got a clue about to whom they are advertising and if they understand that women's jewelry is typically bought as a gift for a woman by a MAN (not a woman... with some exceptions... and Anne Heche... we're still figuring her "out"). Seriously, have you seen it? Here, watch it.
Did you watch it? Did you nearly throw up (or as some of my dear high school classmates used to say "Did you up-chuck?")? Me too. Never before have the people at Kay Jewelers been more artificial in their depiction of a romantic relationship and the giving of jewelry. They've created a ridiculously fake 30-second soap operatic mini-drama to push necklaces - as if the woman watching it is doing the buying. Yes, I'm generally a sexist pig anyway, but please agree with me here. The man is supposed to buy the woman a woman's piece of jewelry. The necklace they advertise is pretty, but it would look awful on me. Therefore, advertise it to make ME want to buy it as a surprise for the lady in my life. Don't advertise as if a woman is supposed to see the commercial and walk up to me and say "This is what you're buying me for Valentine's Day because I want to be like the people in that commercial." That's the easiest way to get some other gift from me. If you want to be like the couple in a commercial, let's go back to the days of those mini-series-style Taster's Choice commercials. Now, that was art. One cup... One brand of coffee... For the rest of their lives. But, I digest.
If you want to sell a product that is commonly used as a gift, advertise to the buyer as much or more as to the recipient. Watch the commercial again. These 30 seconds of Chuck's-gonna-hurl are geared toward the female viewers. No matter how many times I've kept a piece of name-brand jewelry on hand for the possibility that bad weather will strike and, obviously, create the perfect opportunity to surprise my lady fair with it, it becomes a jinx and the sky stays clear. Therefore, I choose not to buy from Kay in anticipation of such a weekend getaway-gone-stormy. Given their blatant disregard for the male money-spenders in the jewelry-buying public, I may not shop with Kay again anyway, unless they get a clue. Who's with me?
I know. I'm nuts. But that's the view from Chuckonia, where every kiss doesn't necessarily begin with Kay.

Now, Where Did I Put That "Get Out of Jail" Card? Oh, YOU have it!

2009-07-23T19:36:00.000-05:00

If you're a fan of this blog and love to see me put on a show, or if you can't stand any of my opinions and want some poetic justice, the day you have been waiting for is close at hand - the arrest of Chuck Grimes (just for being me).

I'm proud to tell you that I'm being locked up... I'm going behind bars to help Jerry's Kids© and the Muscular Dystrophy Association. To be released on good behavior I have to raise bail and I need your help! All you need to do is go to https://www.joinmda.org/nashvilletelu2009/chuckgrimes/SID/4668306/ to make a secure, online donation before July 29. Your donation will help families being served by the MDA and help guarantee my release. I would be honored to add you to my list of contributors. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide to this great organization. Don't hesitate to e-mail me (Prez_Chucko@hotmail.com) with any questions or if you'd rather send a "real" check.

Together we WILL make a difference!

Also, by request, I will gladly provide photographic proof of my "time served."

https://www.joinmda.org/nashvilletelu2009/chuckgrimes/SID/4668306/

Here's to A Carolina Christmas!

2008-12-30T22:30:00.000-06:00

We hope all of you had the merriest of Christmases. In Chuckonia, we enjoyed much celebration and even a little relaxation. Over the season, we heard from a wise scholar from the east (North Carolina) who recently wrote a brilliant article for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy regarding one of the, now, all too common attacks on Christmas statements and displays. We invite the readers of Chuckonia to check it out at: http://popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2110
Our good friend Mr. Bryson has written some other great pieces for the Pope Center, and we encourage you to browse his other works. Until next time, that's what the view from Chuckonia looks like tonight. Happy New Year!

Chuckonian Top 10 - Bond Girls

2008-11-11T21:13:00.000-06:00

With a new Bond film to be released this weekend, we felt it appropriate to share another 007 "Top 5" as a follow-up to our earlier Top 5 Bond Villains list. But, this category is too far-reaching for a mere five items. This time, let's look at Chuck's top 10 favorite Bond girls (or Bond women, if that sounds less sexist). Every one a gem, the women of the Bond films add much to the story through drama and plot twists and are often less predictable than non-Bond-fans assume. It is difficult to rank them, as there truly are several categories of Bond girls. However, with this list, we will try to reveal some traits indicative to each category and each era of the Bond franchise. Note: we are only looking at the "first Bond series" - Connery thru Brosnan - as the franchise has reinvented the story and formula making modern Bond girls less comparable to past ones. Here is Chuck's top 10:

10.) Dr. Holly Goodhead of the CIA (Moonraker) - Though not the first Bond girl to be a spy, Holly was the first to be an allied spy who still resisted working with Bond on a mission of mutual importance. Some may see it as her overactive feminism showing, or perhaps Felix Leiter had told her all about 007 and she was simply not interested, or she felt that England had already lost a U.S. spacecraft so the limey wouldn't be any help. Either way, she held her own and followed the case quite independently until finally agreeing to join forces with Bond in South America, only to be captured shortly thereafter. In the end, Holly's quite literally being a rocket scientist is what saved their lives and the lives of millions that Hugo Drax might've killed. All the while, Holly kicked butt and still looked great.
007: "I'm looking for Dr. Goodhead."
Holly: "You just found her."
007: "A woman?"
Holly: "Your powers of observation do you credit, Mr. Bond."
9.) Melina Havelock (For Your Eyes Only) - Simple yet sexy in looks and demeanor, Melina was a true 80s lady. Her character was revenge-driven at a time and place in which such a pursuit put her in the middle of a much larger and more dangerous situation than just the tragic murder of her parents but, with time, Bond made her understand this and she was willing to help without getting in the way. She was deeper than most Bond girls before or after her, largely due to Carole Bouquet's excellent performance and the very well-written script of the film. Never a damsel-in-distress, we got to focus more on her personal struggle than Bond's protective or sexual pursuit of her.
Columbo: "We are only five men."
Melina: "And one woman."
8.) Tracy Bond, formerly Contessa Teresa Di Vicenzo (On Her Majesty's Secret Service) - Our dear Mrs. Bond was taken so soon but gave the character of Bond a new level of development that was rarely seen in the films (as opposed to Fleming's original novels). Diana Rigg's performance was flawless. She was the ideal British Bond girl - one part innocent, one part tough, one part stuck up, one part stubborn enough for Bond, and all sophisticated. Finally, there was a Bond girl who came to understand 007's struggle between his devotion to duty and his craving for a normal, healthy, duty-free life with love and happiness. Equally, her death enhanced his devotion to duty even in the midst of seeking revenge.
Tracy: "Why do you insist on rescuing me, Mr. Bond?"
7.) Elektra King of King Industries (The World Is Not Enough) - By the time Brosnan came on the scene, we were constantly reminded by characters in the films that women are Bond's fatal weakness. Elektra tried to make it a permanent fact. For the first time, a woman was not only a villain but the primary villain. Though she did most of her evil through Renard, he was merely a very active pawn with no real ambition or devotion except to Elektra. All the while, Elektra ran the show - killing her father, seducing Bond, kidnapping M, and plotting to blow up Istanbul for the sake of her oil empire. Her character redefined Bond girl-ism and Bond villainy, allowing for more depth in Bond's own struggle to trust his instincts and maintain his usual objectivity about the mission.
Elektra: "You couldn't kill me. You'd miss me"
007: (upon shooting her dead) "I never miss."
6.) Pussy Galore (Goldfinger) - In Fleming's original story, Pussy was a lesbian gangster from New York who "converts" at the end of the book when Bond saves her life at Fort Knox. This last-minute switch on her part leaves something to be desired but also made her an interesting character to translate for the silver screen. Never a lesbian on film, Pussy Galore did prove to be the first Bond girl with any real complexity of character. An ace pilot who knew how to use a gun well and was a judo expert when found unarmed, Pussy was initially driven by nothing but the almighty dollar until Bond convinced her that Goldfinger's brand of investment banking was nothing but cold-blooded murder. Ultimately, it was she who tipped off Felix Leiter and prevented the death of tens of thousands of American troops, even if Goldfinger still kept her at his side until Bond send him flying for good.
Pussy: "You can turn off the charm. I'm immune."
5.) Pam Bouvier (License to Kill) - Before she shook up the bar on Law & Order, Carey Lowell made a significant mark on the Bond world. Her portrayal of a tough-talking, tougher-fighting CIA contract pilot was a perfect fit for Timothy Dalton's more serious Bond in the film whose story was purely revenge-based. While she occasionally exhibited a touch of the faint-worthy longing for Bond that traditionalists still crave in their Bond girls and dug deep to put on a sexy secretary act to fit Bond cover in Panama, she was never in a damsel-in-distress situation and, in fact, pulled Bond out of a couple of snares before their job was done. A great combination of beauty, brains, grit, humor, and devotion, Pam was as good or better a partner in fighting evil as she was a lover in Bond's final romp of the 1980s.
Pam: "Look, pal, I was an army pilot. I have flown through the toughest hell-holes in South America, and I will not have you lecture me about professionalism."
4.) Xenia Onatopp (Goldeneye) - While Elektra King would come along two films later and change the rules for Bond girls who were also villains, I simply liked Xenia more. To me, she was the quintessential female Bond villain and his virtual equal. Sex was her weapon of choice, but she was fluent in practically every form of violence and destruction and seemed to revel in it. Basically, she made evil hot again. You can't beat that.
Xenia: "This time, Mr. Bond, the pleasure will be all mine."
3.) Major Anya Amasova of the KGB (The Spy Who Loved Me) - In Roger Moore's favorite of his Bond films, he worked with a stunning actress in Barbara Bach. She gave a no-nonsense performance as a character who was a little bit friend, a little bit villain, and a whole lotta woman. The series had not yet allowed its female spies to be without the damsel-in-distress scenes, but Anya's was fairly minimal and was necessary to her overall relationship with Bond. Otherwise, she would've killed him. Having a Bond girl wish to kill him and still cordially associate with him was a rare touch and made Anya a unique character. At the same time, Anya is important as she solidified some of the Bond girl stereotypes which make the series so important to Western pop culture. If there had not been an Anya Amasova, we would not look at the Bond series the way we do today.
Anya: "I have never failed on a mission, Commander... any mission."
2.) Tiffany Case (Diamonds Are Forever) - A truly liberated 70s woman, Jill St. John's Tiffany Case gave new life to the Bond franchise. A single, independent American woman living in Europe, Tiffany makes no bones about the fact that she is far less interested in Bond than the bundle she's being paid to smuggle diamonds into Los Angeles. Sex is merely a pastime and self-preservation is everything. Willing to turn herself over to any side that promises to make life less complicated for her, she never loses the goal of having it all. Also one of the more humorous Bond girls, Tiffany is the first to have a verbal exchange with Q.
Tiffany: "You don't kill James Bond and sit around waiting for the cops to arrive."
And Chuck's favorite Bond girl...
1.) Octopussy (Octopussy) - The only Bond girl to be a title character, Octopussy was not really a heroine or a villainess but a catalyst for one of the most well-crafted stories of the film series. Maud Adams made her a very believable and interesting character and earned the right to do so, having already been killed off as Andrea Anders in The Man with the Golden Gun. Octopussy was a businesswoman, professional smuggler, independent single woman, and child of a spy gone bad. To enhance her feminist credentials, she had men working for her - though Kamal Khan referred to himself as her partner, we know who brought home the bacon in that operation. She fought to keep profits flowing in from her shady dealings but still managed to help Bond stop the bombing of the U.S. Air Force base in Germany and mobilized her female fighting force against Kamal's all-male militia. She was the kind of woman that Bond wanted and had, but that he depended on for so much more. Among her many great attributes, Octopussy was in the category of Bond girls who gained there depth by being of far more importance than just sex and eye-candy. While we never want to lose that in Bond films, with over 20 films in circulation, one must have variety.
Octopussy: "I have no country. I have no price on my head. I don't have to apologize to you, a paid assassin, for what I am."

There were many amazing women in Bond films over the years, and I don't even like calling this my definite Top 10. The women would remain the same but, under certain considerations, the order may change. And there are certain reasons why different women did not make the list. In the end, we just have to sort it out. Who is your favorite? Comment or e-mail me and let us know.

Elton Must Have Been Singing About Tonight

2008-01-21T20:43:00.000-06:00

We haven't addressed the 2008 presidential election thus far. And, while our readers may have assumed that the first post regarding said election would be an analysis of Republican candidates (given the political leanings in Chuckonia), we find ourselves inspired by tonight's Democratic debate in South Carolina. Particularly interesting is the presentation styles of the three remaining candidates. So, here's Chuck's view....
While the Republicans are still fighting for the nomination like random gubernatorial candidates running for Governor of California (give me those good old days again), the Democrats by some planned or unplanned phenomenon have very quietly and painlessly narrowed their field down to three strong candidates. They are demographically very different. Senator Obama put that point in terms of, "We've got an African-American, a white woman, and John." Sorry, Senator Edwards. The impact of tonight's South Carolina debate came as much from the candidates themselves as from CNN's framework and "rules" of the evening. Actually, what few rules they had were thrown out the window from the get-go, but as the immortal phrase goes, "That's entertainment." As much of a fight as John Edwards is putting forth in his quest for the nomination, I believe the majority of Americans would agree that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the Democratic frontrunners with virtually equal strength. This point was exhibited throughout the debate as they dominated the discussion and frequently threw charges at each other, especially in the debate's first hour, which resulted in multiple declarations to "set the record straight." Oddly though, the debate's second hour, during which Wolf Blitzer and the candidates sat down and were less guided by the questions asked, was noticeably calmer and friendlier. Could the two candidates have made a pact during the half-time commercial break to play nice and be friends again? Or did the adjustment in format really have that much significance to cool the jets on stage? Regardless, the first hour is likely what more people viewed of the show and will certainly be what the media covers more heavily tomorrow morning and in the days between now and the next Democratic debate (on January 31). The first hour was the good stuff. Lots of daggers being thrown, a lot of charges made, and a lot of attempts by John Edwards to get in on the action without getting mud on his face in the crossfire. From Hillary's voting record in the Senate to her career as an attorney to her dear husband Bill, Barack Obama had plenty of ammunition to throw at Hillary Clinton. And from Barack's record on the Iraq war to his time in the Illinois State Senate to his "endorsements" of Republican ideas, Hillary had ample supply as well. The difference in the fight was not in terms of quality of ammo. As I said, these two candidates are of virtually equal strength and could rebut everything the other said in some fashion. The difference was in performance style. Politics is 50% intelligence and 50% stage presence (ok, that's debatable). Tonight, we saw a smooth-talking, calmness-maintaining, sharp arrow-shooting Barack Obama. But to his right (my left) we saw classic Hillary Clinton. She was aggressive, ferocious, and wouldn't think of letting a charge go unanswered and pursued the last word on all of them. The sweet demeanor she was working (too hard) to adopt and maintain, to almost convince us that she used to live in the South, fell off. There was harshness of voice, fire in her face, and several raised eyebrows to her left. My predictions came true. Over the past weeks, I have told many friends that the way to beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination is to break the shield she has put around her old self, that rigid stick-to-business First Lady we (as Republicans and many Americans in general) came to know and dislike. "She's just gotta let the bitchiness out again," I would say. Well, tonight, I believe it happened. And somewhere on Earth, there's an Elton John concert going on or a CD being played and someone is hearing one for Hillary. "The Bitch Is Back." Let the game begin again. Now I can recognize that woman I heard on TV tonight.

Merry Christmas To All, You Punks!

2007-12-23T14:49:00.000-06:00

We of Chuckonia would be holding back far too much if we didn't address the newly-amplified push to neutralized the Christmas season and show a politically-correct level of respect for those who do not celebrate based on a Christian-influenced holiday concept. We say "Christian-influenced holiday" rather than "Christian" as we know that many non-Christians, even atheists, celebrate the holiday which originated upon the birth of Jesus Christ. Why wouldn't they? If you had no religious grounding or adhered to a faith without a major gift-giving holiday, wouldn't you want to get in on the action of a festive event complete with great food and lots of merchandise? While we know this is not the true intent of the holiday, it becomes the secular focus for those without a bond to the real reason for the season. That in itself is cause enough to get fed up with the constant injection of "Season's Greetings" and "Happy Holidays" where a hearty "Merry Christmas" once stood proudly and seldom opposed. We don't believe for a second that a vast throng of atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians of other faiths got together and petitioned corporate America (we're primarily talking about retail vendors and the media here) to be less imposing on those who do not celebrate one of the particular holidays found in the winter season or to be more neutral in their declarations of goodwill on behalf of those who do not claim a particular religion. In some parts of America, it is probably very common to hear "Happy Hanukkah" rather than "Merry Christmas." If one is in such a community but not one who celebrates the holiday, be happy, someone wished you a "happy something." Wish them a "happy something" back - your choice - and go on living.
We do not want it to go unnoticed that this debate, this practice, and this fear of ostracizing patrons has gone on for some years now. However, it has been particularly strong this year, as many companies are being put in the spotlight by religious leaders who are against their kicking Christmas out of their vocabularies, and while more companies seem to be doing it on a policy-based and company-wide level. Perhaps it is because religion is a more newsworthy issue again in light of the pending presidential race. Perhaps it is simply the newest battle in the continuing commercialization of Christmas. Or perhaps Rosie and Donald weren't enough and there just needs to be a new national argument. Whatever it is that kicked this into high gear for 2007, the battle rages now more than ever, and we think it needs to stop. Whether someone says "Merry Christmas," "Happy Holidays," "Happy Hanukkah," "Season's Greetings," (Does anyone actually say that? Or does it just show up on cards?) or even "Happy Kwanzaa," it's a statement of friendliness and goodwill and should be seen as such, even if it is not one which specifically addresses the recipient's faith or lack thereof.
Does this mean Chuckonians are all about hearing "Happy Holidays" now and forever? No way! We are in favor of a store clerk exercising his or her freedom of speech and using whatever greeting that sees fit to come forth from the mouth. We want Christians in whatever capacity they live and work to say "Merry Christmas!" without fear or even a thought of consequences. We want our Jewish friends and neighbors to shout "Happy Hanukkah!" to whomever they choose. We want non-religious folks to say whatever they want in reply to whatever we say. You'd be surprised at what some of them might reply with. We just want the melting pot of holidays to enjoy its mixing as we shop for gifts and attend festivities amongst those of varying beliefs while still letting the beliefs enjoy their individuality. There was actually a time when "Merry Christmas" was the neutral holiday declaration, and it didn't necessarily infringe upon anyone's freedom of or freedom from religion. When Eddie Murphy portrayed Gumby on Saturday Night Live in the 1980s, the famous green claymation Jew hosted a television special called "Merry Christmas Dammit!" Crude as it may have been, it makes us think "How could they be so bold in dealing with a Jewish character in such a way?" Because little boldness was necessary in addressing holidays, even then (less than 30 years ago).
Few people have been offended by the "incorrect" declaration of holiday greetings, but many people have participated in the development of this specific offense. This brings us to our last point. Our readers must forgive us, as this thought goes out primarily to our Christian friends. For all the soapbox proclamations we have made in this writing, we do not do it to resume the universal usage of "Merry Christmas" by those who mean it or not. As was stated, people should feel comfortable to speak freely in the spirit of the season, whatever spirit they feel during the season. However, for all our fellow Christians who lead the fight to maintain "Merry Christmas" as a seasonal norm, there are many who contribute to its absence. This occurs all the way to the top of the national ladder, as is exhibited by President and Mrs. Bush's 2007 choice for the First Family's holiday card. It never uses the word "Christmas" at all. While there is no rule stating that all Christians must send specifically "Christmas" cards (a few of ours did not say the word), it is interesting to us that a President who has invoked God in so many ways throughout his political life and presidency chose to leave Him off his cards of holiday greeting during the final Christmas season of his final term in office. We do not totally begrudge the President for this. But it should make Christians think about what they are putting out there to contribute to the CHRISTMAS season.
So, to all our readers and casual observers, regardless of race, religion, color, or creed, read these words and realize that they were meant for more than just readers of the original story - "MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, and to all a good night!" ...And a Happy New Year too.

This One's For Natalie

2007-11-11T15:16:00.000-06:00

It is unfortunate that we have not written in many moons but, for several reasons, this is an ideal day for our return to the "blogosphere." Many changes have taken place in Chuckonia since we last blogged to you, and we want you to understand the new vantage point from which we write.
After the internship at Tennessee's Capitol of which our long-time readers and patriots are aware, I spent another year at the University of Memphis which offered me a job and a graduate assistantship. After a semester of serving the University full-time, followed by a full-time semester of grad school, the Capitol came calling once again. This time, for a less limited engagement. Soon after my fourth summer as a Governor's School counselor, I interviewed for and was offered a job in the office of Tennessee's current Senate Majority Leader. (Though I interned for the Senate Majority Leader in 2006, Mark Norris took on that position after Ron Ramsey's ascension to Speaker of the Senate.) I am grateful to Senator Norris and am enjoying my new life on the Hill. Destiny has swung me like a pendulum, having spent five years 100 miles west of my hometown and now 100 east of home for a new venture. While I sit at the bottom of the ladder (technically, I'm a secretary), I have a view of what's going on in Nashville as if I were already on the roof. This new role will inspire many of our writings and ramblings in Chuckonia, though I will rarely speak of actual occurrences in the office (must consider confidentiality and conflicts of interest here). The fun, again, has begun.
However, tonight, I want to pause and address the simple honor and opportunity of my new course of service in life. Aside from the expressions of my convictions and craziness set forth in this blog, I have sought as many available opportunities as possible in my life to serve others, particularly in the political/governmental realm. If a heavily-involved pursuit has no benefit for others, I see little value in it. Therefore, I am proud of what I am doing now, as I can help people in my native West Tennessee with their issues of concern and in their pursuit of help from the government when necessary. The opportunity to serve in such a capacity is precious. If I had lived in another time, I might not be so fortunate. At my age, I could have been drafted and shipped overseas to serve in a capacity that, though honorable, would not be of my choosing. That very fact has been on my mind a lot lately. One of my new co-workers on the Hill, Natalie (who counters with intelligence, kindness, and professionalism what I over-exude in flamboyance, informality, and eccentricity), is not only a dedicated public servant but also a devoted army wife. Her husband is an Army Captain, currently serving in Iraq. Knowing them has reminded me, beyond the normal increased appreciation for those serving in the military, that Josh's willingness to serve is a virtue beyond measure. His service makes mine and Natalie's and thousands of other civil servants' possible. Whether in the offices of government here at home or on the battlefield far away, we are all working to make the lives of Americans better. The difference is that Josh's choice makes my ability to choose my venue of service possible. So, here in Chuckonia, we don't just want you to thank a soldier on Veterans Day. Thank them for their willingness to serve. That not only creates the difference between a draft-based military and a volunteer military, it exhibits the difference between a nation that remains free and one that remains free because it wants to. I want to, and I am proud and grateful beyond words, that men and women like Captain Josh West agree with me and are making it happen.
God bless our country, our military, and those who stand by both. Natalie, this one's for you.

Dear George, Thanks for the Memories

2007-05-25T14:01:00.001-05:00

In Chuckonia, there is never any question when considering our favorite movies, and we must honor the greatest today. 30 years ago, when Jimmy Carter was in the White House, disco was in the last half of its reign, and America had never heard of "reality TV," we were given (as Steven Spielberg put it) a gift we didn't even know we wanted until George gave it to us. The George we speak of is, of course, George Lucas, and the gift was Star Wars. Though orignally debuting as Episode 4 in a series of unknown length, the original film itself was enough to captivate the imaginations of millions, create the concept of a "blockbuster," set numerous records in the film industry, and change the face of cinema forever. It was the new American mythology and it put science-fiction back in the catalogs of American movies. Though reviving archetypes of old, it told a new kind of story that no one had ever seen, and when followed by The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, created the greatest epic saga ever. Now, two years after the third prequel film's release, completing the six-part series, we are glad to be able to enjoy the entire galactic drama, but cannot help but love the original three films most. The story is so simple and yet so powerful. It is a story of redemption, devotion, family, and a selfless struggle that stands the test of time.
The story of our introduction to the galaxy far, far away is unique for one of our generation. Our parents were not in the class of baby-boomer Star Wars fans, so we did not come by it naturally. At age 10, while channel-surfing late one Friday night, we came upon an airing of Star Wars on the USA Network. TIE Fighters were heading for the Death Star and the next few minutes were so captivating that we stayed up late to watch the rest. Soon after, we rented the entire trilogy and fell forever in love with this masterpiece. The story was beautiful, the characters realistic, the visuals enthralling, and the messages clear. Over the years, good films come and go, but a story like Star Wars is worth watching again and again. It brings out the child in us and pulls us in to feel like part of the action. As fiction goes, it truly is the greatest story ever told.
Thanks for everything, George.

From the Hearts of Chuckonia

2007-04-19T18:00:00.000-05:00

We are shocked and saddened about the events at Virginia Tech this week. No words can express the hurt we feel for the campus community or the families of the victims there. Too often, we are reminded of the devastation that can be caused by a madman's rage and lack of thought, feeling, or love for their fellow man. We pray for a healing to the lives and community that has been shattered by this tragedy and a return to the successful life of Virginia Tech University. The greatest tribute to the fallen victims will be a strong future for those left behind.
"We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain." -Abraham Lincoln
God bless the Commonwealth of Virginia. God bless America.

My Own Personal Piece of History

2007-01-13T16:45:00.000-06:00

I write to you all today, not as the sovereign leader of Chuckonia, but as the humble fan and friend of a great man in Tennessee. On Tuesday, January 9, between 12:30 and 1:00p.m., our state Senate elected itself a new Speaker and, thus, a new Lieutenant Governor for the state. It was more significant in that it was the first time in 36 years that the victor of that election was not Senator John S. Wilder. More significantly to me was the fact that the winner was the Senate Majority Leader and my former boss on Capitol Hill, Senator Ron Ramsey. I have delayed writing about this historic occasion for several reasons. Primarily, I can never fully express how thrilled and relieved I am that this finally happened.
There have been several moments in my life when something on television or in the newspapers gave me the thought that "people will read about this in the history books one day," but never has such an occurrence felt so close to me. I know Ron Ramsey - really know him, and call him a friend. He was a great boss and is a great Senator. He is truly concerned about his constituents and cares about their opinions. He works hard and treats his family well amidst his incredibly hectic schedule. One of my first memories as his intern last year was at the end of the first day I spent in his office. When the Senate's session and his afternoon meetings were over, he asked me to come into his office for no other reason than to speak with me and get to know me. We spent about 40 minutes together that afternoon, and it meant so much. In his position, I knew I would be lucky to have that much time with him again, but it was so good of him to make time for me so early in my time with him. Some interns weren't so lucky. In fact, some probably didn't see their bosses for 40 total minutes all session. One day toward the end of session, he realized that he did not have a black belt to go with his favorite boots. So, on my lunch break, I went to my apartment and brought him my black belt. I loaned it to him that next-to-last week of session and we both forgot about it before we left Nashville for the summer. I didn't care. The next time I saw him in the early fall, he mentioned that he still had it and had planned to send it back to me. I told him to forget about it and just wear it in January when he was elected Senate Speaker. I don't know if he did, but I like to think of it as the belt that bound me to history.
I would not be living up to my Chuckonian code of honor if I did not also write a bit about former Speaker Wilder. People give mixed reviews (depending on how they exercise any level of political temperament), but I firmly believe that John Wilder is a good man, a good Senator, and has been a good Speaker of the Senate. It was definitely his time to step down, but Tennessee is better for having had his service. He was very kind and gracious to me and the other interns. He treated us as guests in his home and never spoke a cross word about anyone in public. He was also very good to Senator Ramsey during the two years that the Republicans controlled the Senate's votes but not the Speaker's chair. It is unknown, as of now, whether Senator Wilder will remain in the Senate for the rest of his term. Should he stay, we are proud. Should he leave, we will truly miss him.
It is one thing to see something historical from afar. It is another to watch something historical occur in person. But it is quite another to see a historical moment in its final year of buildup and then burst into reality. Congratulations Speaker Ramsey! I'm so proud of you!

Our Favorite Ford Drives Home

2006-12-27T00:02:00.000-06:00

We in Chuckonia are saddened tonight at the news of the death of President Gerald Ford. He was a good man and a true statesman, and made a fine impact in his little time in the White House. He once stated before Congress and the American people, "I want to be a good President. But I need your help." Few elected leaders would be so openly humble. He was not an abuser of rhetoric, but rather one of the people and spoke to them as such. He was of the people and worked for the people. That is to be honored. Though many condemned him for pardoning President Nixon, he did it as a matter of principle to help the post-Watergate healing. He was not a slave to political favors and did things for the benefit of the country instead of "playing the game." Among the many great Presidents we have had throughout history, President Ford is especially distinctive, as was a great man who was also a good President. We hope that he, now more than ever, will serve as an example to those who enter politics - a field often to referred to by Ford as a "noble profession." Farewell President Ford. We will truly miss you.

The Unexplainable Political Fears of TV and Movies

2006-12-16T11:55:00.000-06:00

We in Chuckonia want to pose an interesting scenario to our readers and patriots.
After sleeping in on this lovely Saturday morning, we awoke to find one of our favorite films, Back to the Future, airing on USA Network. While watching the last half of the movie, it came to an important scene in which Marty McFly attempts to warn Doc Brown of the fact that he will be brutally shot to death in 1985. As Doc does not want to compromise the stability of the space-time continuum by knowing too much about the future, he refuses to listen to his concerned friend. Still planning to warn Doc somehow, Marty goes to Lou's Cafe nearby and sits down to write a letter to be opened in 1985. Knowing the film as we do (basically being able to quote it) we noticed something missing in the letter written by Marty. In the original film, and every televised incarnation since its 1985 release, the letter as written and read by Marty has gone like this: "Dear Doctor Brown, On the night I go back in time, you will be shot by terrorists. Please take whatever precautions are necessary to prevent this terrible disaster. Your friend, Marty." However, in today's broadcast of the film by USA Network, the letter-writing scene was edited, so that when Marty read the letter back to himself, it read thusly, "Dear Doctor Brown, On the night I go back in time, you will be shot. Please take whatever precautions are necessary to prevent this terrible disaster. Your friend, Marty." They did not let him say the words "by terrorists." In fact, when the camera moves down to actually show the letter, the words "by terrorists" are erased from the page (didn't know a network could edit that much). This was an interesting twist to us, as it goes beyond editing for adult content or time but edits for political implication. In the film, the terrorists were Libyans from whom Doc Brown obtained plutonium for his time machine. While Libya's relations with the U.S. and the rest of the world have changed somewhat over the years, they are far from holding "Favored Nation Status." In our post-9/11 world, have we decided that "terrorist" is a profane expression, a faux pas, and a dirty word? Have we gotten to the point that we want to avoid declaring any old enemies as terrorists, even in 1980s science-fiction movies? Are we worried about kids seeing something on television that makes them turn to a parent and ask "What's a terrorist?" More importantly, are we worried that socially and politically ignorant parents would find a hard time explaining it? Why should such a move be made over 20 years after a Cold War-era fiction film was released? If you can answer these questions, then you're smarter than we are. We welcome your input on it. And until next time, as Doc Brown would say, "See you in the future."

Bond Fans, "Lynd" Us Your Ears

2006-12-05T23:22:00.000-06:00

Being the Bond fans we are here in Chuckonia, we feel it necessary to break the long silence and finally express our true thoughts and feelings on the newest James Bond film, Casino Royale. To be frank, this is (in a way) NOT the newest James Bond film. Rather, it is a new Bond film series which is beginning. The man played by Daniel Craig is called James Bond and his MI6 service number is 007 and his parents are dead and he does have a boss called "M" and he bears many personality characteristics common to another film character called James Bond, but he is not the same character who was portrayed by Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan. Therefore, we find it confusing for less knowledgeable fans and unfair to die-hard loyalists to compare him to that other character. Granted, it was getting a little hard to believe that a man of at least 80 years of age (Do the math. If Bond was a naval Commander in WWII, he'd have to have been born in or before 1927.) could bungee jump, scuba dive, have sex multiple times in a day, and generally kick ass like the five Bonds before Craig, but it is also hard to let go of the guy. James Bond was like Batman - a superhero with no actual superpowers. That's what makes Bond the perfect hero - he is human. However, he was far more human in the novels written by Ian Fleming (we have read some of them, and did a term paper on Fleming himself) than the silver screen made him in the 1960s. When Eon Productions decided to, basically, reinvent Bond that's what they shot for - the deeper level of flawed, emotional humanity. On film (before Craig) Bond was objective and always primarily focused on the mission, but he cared about people at the same time. In print, Bond was much colder and almost a robot for England. He sometimes regretted his work and the dark life it forced him to lead. This may be due, in part, to the lack of worldwide severity found in some of his literary missions. Even he didn't find them so immensely important all the time. On film, Bond's job had to be kept simple. To do this, many of his missions started out with a global problem that heightened the suspense early on (perfect example, You Only Live Twice) or a simpler mission turned into a much bigger calamity to make for intriguing plot development (perfect example, Octopussy). Now, we find the film-makers returning to the novels and giving Bond every ounce of his literary humanity. But again, they can do that because they have created a second James Bond; not because Daniel Craig and the writers have changed the old James Bond.
This leads us to an actual assessment of the film. Having read Casino Royale (a great book, by the way), we first commend the Bond folks for recreated the story very faithfully. They added a lot of stuff (the book itself wouldn't make for a 2-hour movie) but took practically nothing away. Some of the more powerful scenes were taken straight from the pages of the 1953 masterpiece, particularly the scene in which Bond is suffering torture at the hands of Le Chiffre. One scene that I wish were more exact was the one in which Felix Leiter bailed Bond out of a jam to keep him in the card game. The film makes it (and Felix's whole involvement) rather lackluster compared to the book, or even the original Bond films. The novel truly shows Felix to be the hero that he is and would later be as his friendship with Bond grew. Speaking of Felix, it was an interesting move to use an African-American actor for the role. His literary counterpart was a tall, pale Texan with a true Southern flare. However, Jeffrey Wright's limited-time performance was of high quality. As for Vesper Lynd, the writing, acting, and environment for the character came together beautifully. We noticed that in the film, she seems less depressed about her betrayal but was still very distraught. Le Chiffre, also, was very well-interpreted and was almost pitiable in his fear of his investors. We love what they did with "M." It was a breath of fresh air to see her so devoted to purpose and as less of a bureaucrat as during the Brosnan years. As much as we love Judi Dench, she is probably the most deceptive component of this new Bond films series. She is playing the same character as in the original series but is very much a different character. The "M" she portrayed before would never have said some of the things she said in Casino Royale. Perhaps this new persona will allow for some fun developments of the character in films to come. We missed "Q" and Moneypenny but realize that by a strict interpretation of the book, "Q" would not be included anyway. All-in-all this is a good character-focused film which Fleming would probably be pleased with. It can never, however, replace the original Bond in our hearts. It will find a new place and be the "second Bond." We give it two thumbs up, but will keep the Daniel Craig films in a distinct separate stack from our other Bond films, as they are films of a different series. We look forward to seeing further installments in this new Bond series. In the meantime, we recommend that you read Casino Royale and the other 007 novels, if you have not already. Literacy is very important in the Chuckonian Federation. And, what better way to experience the joy of reading than with a character you already know? So, watch, read, and enjoy.
And thanks for reading this. For now, that's the view from Chuckonia...

Take Me Out Of The Ballgame

2006-06-23T16:25:00.000-05:00

We in Chuckonia have returned to the roots of the Federation, the place where this traditional charade of a personally-designed country began - the Governor's School. Now, more than when we developed the Chuckonian Federation, the students at Governor's School are talking about the current war in Iraq as it fits in with the larger political theories of democratic peace and the ability of democratic countries to "help" other lands adopt a democratic form of government. While, for our own specific reasons, we supported the war at its beginning and still, for the most part, support the mission in Iraq, we have become worried about the length of time spent in the Middle East and the lack of Iraqi involvement in setting themselves up to allow us a gradual and successful withdrawal. In the midst of these thoughts, we have posed ourselves the question, "Is democracy the right of all people, or just those who can handle it?"
We believe, as the Founding Fathers did, that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is "self-evident." But, self-evident to whom? Can it be expected that only those who realize a better life exists should be allowed to pursue it? If that is true, then all people must be deemed responsible for obtaining their own freedom.
On the other hand, we now have a world in which many countries are "free" by general standards. As has become the nature of free governments, we reach out in many ways to less fortunate neighbors around the globe. Is "aiding the development" of democratic governments in other nations really the kind of reaching out that we expect of ourselves? We are inclined to say no. As noble a cause as it is, it almost seems like coercing your child to join the local baseball league. The child may already enjoy playing baseball, but being on an organized team with multiple scheduled games may overwhelm and bore the child. What the child would prefer is to play ball in the backyard with friends and neighbors at their leisure. With the development of democratic governments, the "children" or non-free people need to ask to be on the baseball team themselves rather than have an older relative hold their hand to join. Furthermore, for the team to function properly, it needs to organize from within, not by the whims of others, so as to determine the strengths and abilities of the members and where they need to differ from other teams to find success in the larger baseball league.
Basically, we're taking what we feel is a truly Republican position here to disagree with the position of a fellow Republican (sorry, President Bush, we'll praise you for something later). We believe in getting what YOU work for, not what someone else works for on your behalf. Our Founders saw the problems of their life in the colonies, they decided what they could build as a form of governance in its place, and they organized the movement to make a change happen from within. That's where democracy comes from - inside the hearts and minds of the people. When the people desire freedom enough that they are willing to work for it, let them have it. And feel free to ask the rest of us to help. We in Chuckonia would take up arms for our sister nations in support of revolution anytime, but only when they do it for themselves first. Freedom is not free, but it is a gift only to be given to oneself.
So, parents, don't force your kids onto the baseball team. And, Americans, treasure your freedom. Everyone wants their own, but they've got to find the store themselves.

We're From the Country and We STILL Like It That Way

2006-02-25T12:20:00.000-06:00

We heard something on television this week that shocked, troubled, and surprised us in Chuckonia. At our current place of employment (the Tennessee State Capitol), one of our superiors likes to watch Court TV. On Thursday morning, they broadcast the sentencing of a 16-year-old boy who murdered his father at age 14. The real question was, naturally, should the boy (Cody Posey) be sentenced as an adult or as a juvenile. Sentencing him as a juvenile would basically make him a free young man on his 21st birthday. The judge, under New Mexico law, sentenced him to detention and treatment/counseling as a minor. Not knowing enough specifics of the case, except that the father severely abused his son/killer, we are not here to comment on the rightness or wrongness of sentencing young Cody as a minor. We rather seek to discuss part of the judge's reasoning for his overall sentencing "package deal."
While announcing his ruling, the judge presented to the parties of the case the list of factors he took into account when determining if the defendant would respond to treatment if sentenced as a minor and, in fact, whether or not he believed that Cody Posey would kill again. One of the factors by which the judge determined that Cody would not kill again was that his "rural upbringing contributed to a general lack of street smarts." Having been brought up in a rural setting also, we applaud the fact that such a past, apparently, reduces our amount of responsibility and potential as a repeat murderer. However, in a vague attempt at objectivity, it is troubling that such a factor even came into consideration by the judge when developing his ruling. We would be very concerned about the state of American jurisprudence if an urban youth under the same at-home circumstances killed his father but was put away for the rest of his life because he had more access to street smarts and, therefore, was considered more of a risk to kill again. In conclusion, we're proud of our country, non-urban heritage but do not wish to put it to the test on trial for murder.
The moral of our ramblings - country folk, please don't kill. It's hazardous to someone's health (maybe your own).

Testing Your Chuckology

2005-12-08T00:08:00.000-06:00

Here's some questions to test the strength of your knowlege of the Chuckonian Federation and its founder and leader. It's also a quick fix until Chuck has time to write some new good stuff. For those of you who don't know Chuck personally, this is also a good way to truly learn about the man. Respond with your answers and Chuck will let you know if you're right.
1.) Where on Earth (on what continent) is Chuckonia located?
2.) When and where did the idea of the "Chuckonian Federation" develop?
3.) With what real (American) political party is Chuck Grimes affiliated?
4.) With what Chuckonian political party is Chuck affiliated?
5.) If you've got a fever what is the only prescription (according to Christopher Walken)?
6.) Who is Chuck's favorite U.S. President?
7.) Where is Chuck in college?
8.) What are the two primary cash crops and export products of the Chuckonian Federation?
9.) Who is Chuck's favorite James Bond villain?
10.) Is Chuck a fan of reality TV?

Here's Your Republicanism. - Would You Like Fries With That?

2005-12-02T13:59:00.000-06:00

We now hear from the sovereign leader of the Chuckonian Federation...
I was posed a simple question with an interesting answer today in one of my classes. The class in which this point arose was "Political Parties & Elections." It is, naturally, a lecture and discussion-based class, and the enrollment of it could not be more diverse. Among the politicos found within the walls of said class, you can find the former President of the UofM College Republicans (me), two current officers of the club, the current President of the UofM College Democrats (a very fine fellow and good friend), one of his officers, a liberal writer/editor for the university newspaper, and a black Republican (not an impossibility, but a rarity in Memphis). The discussion generated in this class is always interesting, primarily because I often find myself agreeing with my former Democratic counterpart (feels good to be retired from organized politics, makes such agreements easier to handle). Today, however, I found an interesting point which may well explain the entire political culture of 21st Century America.
How the topic fully developed is foggy, even in my short-term memory, however the final point is what sticks out. We were throwing around comments and ideas about the lack of participation in both major parties and how the stereotypes of each party play a role in their individual problems with keeping "good help" whether in war or peacetime. It eventually turned into a discussion about the differences between the parties and within a few minutes of discussion control by me, the professor, and my former Democratic counterpart, we came to the point that the parties differ (in general) as follows: Democrats appeal to and attempt to accommodate, as a party, many different interests and groups and types of people; Republicans tend to have a narrower package of ideas and idea classifications and less diversity of supporters for those ideas. Therefore, it is easier for Republicans to "mobilize the base" while harder for Democrats to establish a base to be mobilized or find solid party leadership. This, of course, is a very general idea and really only applies to national politics. But, it made me think and led me to develop a metaphor which I shared with the class. Being a Republican is like going to a fast-food restaurant for one burger. You've got all your beliefs packaged between two buns and even though the fixings on the burger may differ a little, it's still a hamburger. Being a Democrat is like going to a full buffet and not really being able to get some of everything but finding just about everything you like. And at some point or another, everyone is going to be enticed to check out the buffet. Basically, the Republican party often has the air of "processed packages of ideas" and the Democratic party finds itself looking delicious to everyone at some times but still not being the restaurant that we want to eat at every night. In the end, this metaphor is not intended to paint my party or the opposition positively or negatively, simply realistically.
We remind our royal readers that, in Chuckonia, straight talk comes first, rhetoric second. Never try to fool yourself into believing that your system of beliefs - whether is be your politics, religion, ideas on family, how you educate your kids, your work ethic, or even how you bait a hook - is without flaw. Any belief system, to be truly effective in your own life, must be viewed realistically and thoroughly. You shouldn't believe something because you can overlook the flaws, but rather because you can accept them and work to make them better for the benefit of all believers. In well over a decade of political devotion, I think that's the most valuable life lesson I have learned from it all. I'm proud to be a Republican (see I Know Why the Caged Elephant Sings), but I'm prouder because it is my choice to be one and my acceptance of the imperfections of the party that drives me to continue to fight for change in an already ever-changing world.
Keep reading. For me, the fight begins in Chuckonia.

Chuckonian Top 5 - James Bond Villains

2005-11-27T20:41:00.000-06:00

As we enjoy the Thanksgiving Bondathon on TV this weekend, we thought we'd share Chuck's picks for the top 5 best Bond film villains. And the nominees are...
5.) Francisco Scaramanga, a.k.a. The Man with the Golden Gun - Probably the most "human" of all Bond villains, he had a record of being over-worked, under-paid, and under-appreciated by those who utilized his services. First the KGB failed to truly treasure him, then Hi-Phat in China. By the time he went completely independent, he had amassed a fortune and ran his own posh island hideaway with an in-house solar electricity plant and "Tattoo" from Fantasy Island as a butler. Not bad for a guy who made his living killing people. Scaramanga was Bond's equal in many ways, which is always a good dimension. In fact, the film ended, not as most do with Bond stopping a world takeover plot and killing the villain along the way, but with "a duel between titans," focusing more on the pursuit of the kill. The Man With the Golden Gun was unique from most Bond films by virtue of its title character, and Christopher Lee's performance was excellent (now that he has also played a Star Wars villain, it kind of ups the coolness factor for both).
Scaramanga - "Like any great artist, I want to create an indisputable masterpiece once in my lifetime."
4.) Alec Trevelyan, formerly British Agent 006 - This was, again, one of Bond's equals. In fact, Alec was probably the most equal of all of Bond's opponents, though it is not so strongly exhibited in Goldeneye. Alec uses his keen knowledge of Bond's modus operandi to plan ahead and predict most of Bond's moves along the Goldeneye mission. He obviously recruited Xenia Onatopp as the female version of Bond (skilled pilot, never failed a mission, user and abuser of sex for the sake of the job) to counter him. Alec also exhibits a kind of reverse equality, since his purpose for leaving MI6 and stealing the Goldeneye involves his desire to settle a personal score against England. Bond is known for carrying out his personal vendettas (sometimes at the expense of quick resolution of a case) at all costs. With Alec, Bond saw an example of how such personal feelings can destroy an agent and put many others at risk. Killing his old colleague was a personal pain for Bond but a self-inflicted reminder that his devotion to Queen and country comes before all else.
Trevelyan - "For England, James?"
Bond - "No. For me."
3.) Auric Goldfinger - The quintessential villain of the Connery era, Goldfinger was the only non-SPECTRE villain that Connery's Bond ever dealt with. He was obsessive about gold in all forms and winning by any means. Some of the lines that came from Goldfinger's mouth and his nothing-can-stop-me attitude set the precedent for Bond villains on through the years. His cat-and-mouse way of keeping Bond alive in an attempt to put him to use may have kept victory from his grasp but kept him a complex character. Goldfinger exhibited a quality held by many other villains - he got great satisfaction out of bragging about his plans but eliminated those who knew of them to protect his secrets. Some villains suffer their downfall because of this, but Goldfinger's associates suffered theirs first. Delta 9 nerve gas and being crushed in a trash compactor probably hurt pretty bad, and all for the fact that they knew about Operation Grand Slam. After Mr. Solo perished in the trash-compacter, it was ironic that Goldfinger himself was compacted by a tiny window in his own airplane. In many ways, Auric Goldfinger was "the man with the Midas touch." He just couldn't reach the true golden stash - Fort Knox.
Bond - "Do you expect me to talk?"
Goldfinger - "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."
2.) Ernst Stavro Blofeld - Appearing in 6 Bond films, we never saw Blofeld portrayed by the same person twice (at least, in the 3 films that showed his face). This is an unfortunate blow to the character itself, as the performance and performer can alter some interpretations. Luckily, each man who played Blofeld did it very well. As for the general character, he was brilliant. Just as smart and almost as powerful with or without SPECTRE. He always took advantage of the world's situation at a given time. Threats are more risky when a country needs to keep both eyes aimed elsewhere. Whether for money or power, Blofeld always kept his eyes on the prize. And caused the national eyes of the Cold War to veer off so as to profit his cause. He would stop at nothing and was apparently proud that he emotionally crippled James Bond by killing his wife right after the wedding. He all but gloated about his personal connection with Bond in Diamonds Are Forever. Blofeld and SPECTRE set the stereotypes of Bond villains. Such practices as treating one's enemy to dinner and explaining part of the current takeover plan became trademarks from Blofeld. This, and the fact that Roger Moore's Bond had the honor of sending Blofeld to his grave, extended Blofeld's influence far beyond his final scheme in the Connery/Lazenby era. If drugs keep a DEA agent in business and illegal immigrants keep INS agents in work, Ernst Stavro Blofeld is the man who put a paycheck in James Bond's hand during the Cold War.
Blofeld - "I'm disappointed. I was expecting one head of state at the very least.... Your pitiful little island hasn't even been threatened."
And Chuck's favorite Bond villain...
1.) Elliot Carver - Though I am a firm believer that the Cold War years were the golden age of Bond, the golden achievement of villain creation came in 1997 when Pierce Brosnan's Bond took on the ultimate in refined megalomaniacs. Elliot Carver had an enormous legitimate business empire which he used to illegitimately create business. He admittedly operated by the William Randolph Hearst declaration "You provide the pictures and I'll provide the war," and he showed this with great style and intelligence. Wealth and brains were the raw materials for this evil force, but as he said "Words are the new weapons, satellites the new artillery." While Carver was not one of the equal-to-Bond kind of villains, the fact that he happened to be married to one of Bond's former loves put them on a level plane in some respects and made the Tomorrow Never Dies mission a bit of a personal matter for 007. Bond's methods of antagonizing Carver were quite entertaining. The conversation in which Bond all but admits that he knows Carver is behind the sinking of the H.M.S. Devonshire followed by his cutting off power to Carver's TV network during a major speech were clear exhibitions of Carver's hot buttons - fame, power, the spotlight, and only sharing the information he deems "newsworthy." Carver was another of the very "human" villains. He wanted glory and control. What made him a super villain was the way by which he pursued these things. His lines are among my favorites of the Bond films and Tomorrow Never Dies is easily my favorite film of the Brosnan era.
Bond - "You really are quite insane."
Carver - "The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success."

Law & Order: Trial by Iraqi Jury

2005-10-19T15:59:00.000-05:00

We celebrate the fact that Saddam Hussein's trial has begun in Iraq this week. The 5-week recess requested by the defense will hold us in suspense for a while, but the fun will come soon enough. The prosecution's decision to accept the defendants' request for the recess was quite honorable, and we are confident that both sides will make the most of the time (we're rooting for the prosecution though). We agree that this trial is a great symbol of the emerging democracy that is the new Iraq. Indeed, how the Iraqi justice system handles itself during this time will be an exhibition of true independence by the Iraqi government. Basically, it's good to see them exercising their freedom without an American judge or lawyer feeding them lines and instructions. U.S. defense of the courthouse is sufficient involvement for Uncle Sam at this point. We send our best wishes to the Arab world as they take this step toward holding extremist tyrants accountable for crimes against humanity.
The conflict of views that will be brought to the surface through coverage of the trial may raise eyebrows, however. In an article we read via MSN today, one Iraqi call Saddam "the lesser of evils" in comparison to the newly established government. Another, who had been a political prisoner for a while under Saddam, stated that he hopes that "he is executed, and that anyone who suffered can take a piece of his flesh" (makes us feel warm and tingly inside). We hope that the people on each side of this debate soon realize that such disagreement is the fruit of democracy and can fuel a prosperous, peaceful society. While execution for certain crimes is a just penalty, we want Iraq to learn to manage itself through civil, non-murderous means to support justice and a safe society.
We hope that life is going well in your part of the world. For today, that's the way we see things in Chuckonia.

A Brief Bit of Chuckonian Wisdom

2005-10-11T01:01:00.000-05:00

-For my money, Northern brand toilet paper is the best.
-Hunt's ketchup not only costs less, but it doesn't fund John Kerry's next Senate race.
-If they keep putting TV shows on DVD while the show is still on the air and making new episodes, why show them on TV anymore?
-Why does the theatre in Jackson have the electric hand-dryer in the men's room right above an unused electrical outlet?
-If you're reading this blog, you probably have more free time than I do. Trade with me!

Two Thumbs Up For Tuesday

2005-10-07T16:18:00.000-05:00

For the combined purpose of emerging from our recent disappearance and sharing some commentary on one of this season's new TV shows, we wanted to tell you what we are now doing with the one rare free hour we have in a busy and hellish, yet typical, week.
Some call it a liberal manifesto in prime time. Some call it a not-so-subliminal plug for Hillary Clinton's future designs on the presidency. Though it may be both, we simply call ABC's "Commander In Chief" really good television. Yes, it's like many other political dramas, in that the "heroes" are the more liberal characters and the "villains" are the declared conservatives. Only two episodes have aired so far, and it still seems that President MacKenzie Allen (Geena Davis) may exhibit an occasional conservative tendency now and then. Party-wise, her character is called an Independent. And, while she was the Vice President in a Republican administration, she holds nothing back when disagreeing with the team that the dead President Bridges left her. On the other hand, she also, very thoughtfully, attempts to keep as much of that team intact as possible (Chief of Staff, Cabinet, etc.). We have faith that President Allen will, in some cases, show a dash of conservatism, but that is not to say that the writers will ever make House Speaker Nathan Templeton (Donald Sutherland) a hero in any sense.
Some of our fellow conservatives think it foolish that we should watch such a show as this. But, if we were to shun all television and films that present political and moral ideologies which oppose our own, we wouldn't own a TV at all. It's just good television, and the first new show that we have faithfully watched since CBS's "Family Law" went off the air (a shame to the TV world). So, to those of you who haven't experienced "Commander in Chief," which is part of ABC's Tuesday night line-up, check it out. You'll be glad you did. We are usually conducting our royal business and affairs of state on Tuesday nights, but that's why God made the VCR. So, if anyone writes in wanting to talk about the show, it may be a while before we will have seen the latest episode. C'est la vie, mes amis.

Like Diana Going Solo All Over Again

2005-09-07T13:07:00.000-05:00

Just like Mary Wilson and Cindy Birdsong without Diana Ross, the Supremes have lost their lead voice. We in Chuckonia mourn the loss of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and pray for his family and friends. Unfortunately, this prompts a bit of political discussion. So, from the Chuckonian Weather Service, here's the forecast for Washington...
We'll be seeing cloudy skies as the nation puts Justice Rehnquist to rest in Arlington cemetery. Those clouds will continue until the rescheduled Senate Judiciary Committee hearings begin. Then, those clouds will yield rain, lots of rain, like Noah-in-a-cruise-ship kinda rain. After the recent agreement that put the Senate Democrats somewhat at bay over the filibustering of judicial appointments, many thought that John Roberts would be, fairly easily, appointed to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor. Now that the nomination has been tabbed as one for Chief Justice, we're opening up a whole new can of worms. It's ironic to me, the Tuesday before William Rehnquist's death, my former Congressman, Ed Bryant (my pick for the Republican nomination for Tennessee's US Senator), predicted a 75-25 vote confirming John Roberts. All it takes to blow that prediction off is one word - "Chief." Putting that in front of "Justice John Roberts" makes this all the more debate-worthy for Democrats and, I feel, all the more a kick in the teeth for the other current Justices on the Supreme Court. If I were on the Court and the Chief Justice had just died, I would not feel good about the newly-appointed Justice breezing in with automatic seniority. Granted, nothing says that the Chief Justice cannot be a fresh appointee. In fact, nothing says a Justice has to be a judge or lawyer prior to joining the Supremes. There's not even a minimum age (perhaps my next summer job). However, in today's system of "doing things" in Washington, one would expect a current member of the court to be promoted and for the Senate to try to get two nominees through before the first Monday of October (when the Supreme Court session convenes). The more power is at stake, the more dangerous the Senate hearings are going to be. And, from the basic human perspective, the more power is initially granted, the colder the reception might be given to John Roberts if and when he assumes the position of Chief Justice. To prevent a hurricane on the Hill, weatherman Chuck prescribes that one of the current conservative Justices be promoted to Chief Justice, that John Roberts be confirmed to replace Sandra Day O'Connor as soon as possible, and that another nominee be put before the Judiciary Committee as soon as Roberts is out of committee and ready for a floor vote.
If it weren't for William Marbury, James Madison, and John Marshall (if you don't know their connection, look it up, it'll be good for you), we wouldn't be too concerned about this. But, thanks to them and a lot of folks after them, we have to accept that the Supreme Court has incredible power and must be intelligently maintained by the government's other branches. We wish all the best to the Rehnquist family, and in his memory, we also wish Godspeed and good judgment to the branches who must now determine the fate of the Supremes.

But In the South, It's A Religion

2005-09-05T09:15:00.000-05:00

It's time I addressed a topic that stirs some of my most passionate opinions - sports. Specifically, sports in our public schools and universities. Here's a screenful of Chuck's-gonna-piss-someone-off-and-he-don't-care. So, take a look at the way we see things in Chuckonia...
I am from the South. I love the South - the food, the people, the language, the music, and the culture. Most of the culture, that is. Here in the South, sports are very important.... Too important.... Way too important. Don't get me wrong, sports have their place in the lives of many well-rounded individuals. They encourage competition and fun, which we heartily believe in here in Chuckonia. They are an excellent way to exercise. And on the large scale, they create cultural events that bring people together and have the same effect as a holiday parade or county fair. As good as all of that is, we have a problem with how devoted our society is to sports as opposed to other matters. The basic question here is balls vs. books. Sports-lovers and football-watching alumni can argue with me all they want, but in the final analysis, they can be proven to show more devotion to a pigskin than a bookworm. It's time for that to change. It's time to stop over-funding our athletic departments while under-funding the hard-working academics that send well-rounded and well-prepared individuals out into the world. We need smaller student-to-teacher ratios and larger coach-to-player ratios. It amazed me a few days ago when I saw 6 football coaches at the UofM, knowing that there are more. 6 different coaches?! This confuses, amazes, and angers me. My state sales tax dollars, tuition, and university access fees are paying for that. And yet, every time an important class is not offered or not offered conveniently, I'm supposed to be understanding when the excuse is "budget cuts." I've heard the gloom and doom of budget cuts so much when it comes to education in this state that I'm almost immune, except when I see such calamities as the too well-supplied athletic departments here at the UofM and elsewhere. Cut their budgets; it won't hurt them. In fact, cut all tuition and tax-dollar flow from every public school (elementary thru college) sports team in America and then watch them turn even bigger profits. "Impossible," you say. Let's break it down. For three semesters of college, before joining the hallowed ranks of resident advisors, I was a "Phonathon operator" - basically, the guy who called University of Memphis alumni and begged (with lots of style) for contributions to our academic scholarship funds. I enjoyed what I did, and I think I was kinda good at it. It bothered me, however, when I noticed certain trends in the refusal reasons of the graduates. Chief among them was "I've bought my season tickets," or "I'm a member of the Football Boosters," or any variation of the "I give to athletics and that's enough" excuse. It was infuriating. It certainly was not my first exposure to the balls over books mentality, but one of the worst. I was used to that attitude at my small-town Southern high school. But, as cruel as it sounds, most of the people exhibiting that attitude then were not college-educated nor expected to be as well-off financially. When I called college graduates (often with Masters degrees) who had more earning potential, I expected them to be more generous in general and intelligent enough to understand the true base purpose of an educational institution. Unfortunately, such enlightenment is still not widespread. But, back to the profit-making sports argument. My exposure to the "give me sports or give me death" mentality, topped off by my work experience in college, finally made me realize that the majority of Americans, most especially Southerners, will bend over backwards and sell the farm to keep sports in our schools. Such devotion could only be increased by pity. The pity that would come from eliminating all public funding from athletic programs in elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges. When the fans and alumni hear of such a tragedy, their checkbooks will open wider that Mick Jagger's mouth and the athletes will have more money than their coaches would know what to do with. The profits will keep them all sitting pretty.
Again, I remind you that sports have their place in society and in the lives of well-rounded individuals, but they should be completely funded by their own earnings and private interests. And if you try to point fingers at the fine arts, I point them back, knowing that they have never been as thoroughly funded by the school systems as sports are. So, the next time you have the option of funding scholastics or athletics, please remember which one is the true purpose of a school, which one produces the true leaders and thinkers and world-savers, and which needs it the most. I am proud to be a Christian here in the Bible Belt, but I also feel shame because I know that that is only the secondary faith of the region. As the old saying goes about football, "But in the South, it's a religion."

In The Wake of Katrina, Wake Up!

2005-09-03T22:40:00.000-05:00

Though intended and currently appropriate, the following was prompted by a request from someone that cannot be refused in Chuckonia. This is for all our friends in Cajun Country...
"This is our tsunami." I heard that on TV a few nights ago, and it's the most apt description I have found of what's going on along the Gulf coast right now. Not only in terms of devastation but also as far as national attention and concern. When I say "national" attention, however, I mean people, not necessarily the government. Before I get into that however, I'd like to give my recent personal perspective and limited experience with Katrina's victims.
The University of Memphis, at which I am a student and resident advisor, has generously invited any students of universities affected by the hurricane to enroll with us for no extra tuition. We are also providing them with accommodations in our residence halls. In addition, a dorm that had been shut down for two years has been refurnished and put online for over 200 non-student evacuees to have lodging as they escape the ruined cities further south. Yesterday, in my capacity as a resident advisor, I met three of the students from the University of New Orleans who will be living in the apartment complex in which I work. When the third one arrived to check in to her room, I gave her the information sheet that all new residents fill out and proceeded to spout off the usual check-in instructions. A couple of minutes later, I noticed that she had put the sheet down on the table without filling out much of it. Primarily, the section for an off-campus address and family contact info was blank. I couldn't bring myself to question it or even mention that I noticed it, because I realized that she probably didn't want to note an address that may not exist anymore. It broke my heart, and I fought some tears. Fortunately, the burden lightened when I realized that she had misunderstood and simply didn't think she was supposed to fill out the whole thing. Mistaken or not, it really made me think. And this is what I thought about...
First, when are all the countries that we have supported in time of natural crisis going to return the favor? I haven't heard any Asians or Europeans announce that they're sending anybody. As cold as it may sound, I believe that all US Government entities still working in Southeast Asia on tsunami relief and any completely American-staffed private agencies should pull out immediately to help here at home. At least then, the Asians would have something to do and a valid excuse for not coming here to help us.
Second and most important, when is the United States Government going to speed up its priorities? A good Republican though I try to be, I've never accused George W. Bush of being a good organizer. As large as the federal government is, one would think that it could handle multiple tasks at once. And maybe it just looks like it on TV, but it seems more and more as time goes on that they only work on one thing at a time. As soon as the Mayor of New Orleans made the evacuation order public, the President of the United States should have been ringing his phone. In time of crisis, it's a bad sign to here from the head man at CNN before the head of the Executive Branch. Let's play with some hypotheticals here. With the worries over lack of military personnel to "staff" the new Iraq and base closings here in America for budget reasons, the government was afraid to commit more than it had. Furthermore, the Iraq operation-devotees are probably shaking in their boots at the thought of having to risk the loss of numbers in the Middle East to help the work here IN OUR OWN COUNTRY. Don't get me wrong, I supported the war and still do, but in times like this, it's the post-war occupation that I have a problem with. Groups like the Red Cross are, as always, wonderful right now. But no private organization should be ahead of the most powerful government on Earth when arriving at the site of a disaster. This is not my queue to start ripping the war issue apart and bashing the administration. But, in short, our own people need a lot more help than anyone else in American eyes right now. We've gotta take an old-fashioned "America for the Americans" approach and focus on the ravaged areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
It's easy for me to sit here in dry, clear-skied Memphis and pass all these judgments, but the bottom line is that we can't spend all our time reading the stories that ask "Is Your City Ready For the Big One?" Instead, we need to pay more attention to the ones that say "This Is What You Can Do To Help Now." No shoulda-coulda-wouldas will help us. So, to all our readers (listen to me acting like I have a huge fan base), find some way to help. Contribute money, blood, food, supplies, and even shelter if you have friends along the coast. Just do something! And, to all our friends in the storm-ravaged area and its surroundings (especially our dear old friends in Cajun Country), we're praying for you and looking forward to the return to normalcy in the Southeast. As we await that time, you've always got friends in Chuckonia.

Who's Gonna Fill Their Shoes? - Volume 1

2005-08-12T11:55:00.000-05:00

We begin what will be (from time to time) an ongoing series of cultural commentary from Chuckonia. We seek to answer the question posed by George Jones, "Who's gonna fill their shoes?" We ask that question of several cultural staples of our youth, which we believe were far more culturally beneficial in their own way than some "advancements" of the 21st Century. For the purpose of this series, it is important to note that we were born in 1983, we remember the end of the Cold War, the Challenger explosion (vaguely), the first Gulf War (America kicked major tail back then), and the beginning of TGIF as it stood on ABC's Friday night line-up. That's the generation from which we speak. We also recognize, as was often so eloquently stated by Gladys Knight before singing "The Way We Were" that "As bad as we think they are, these will become the good old days for our children." Therefore, not only do we acknowledge that the past of which we speak was not and, probably, still is not seen as kindly as we see it, but that the present which we criticize will, one day, be viewed with higher regard by those younger than us. With all that in mind, we first discuss a favorite indoor pastime - video games. Here's the historical view from Chuckonia...
Around 1985, Japan made one of the great cultural contributions of the 20th Century - the Nintendo Entertainment System. Yes kids, we're only talking about the NES. Some of you never knew that such a thing existed without "Super" in front of the name or "64" behind it. And, no, we had yet to hear of anything called X-Box or Playstation. All we needed on a controller was A, B, Start, Select, Up, Down, Left, and Right to create hours (and I do mean many hours) of fun for friends and family of all ages. We spent many a sleepover as a young Chuckonian staying up literally all night with our royal friends to keep Link, Mario, Luigi, Mega Man, and others fighting for freedom in their worlds. Video games of the past had a uniting effect for us. We were able to feel like freedom fighters, conquerors, defenders, and victors in the comfort of our own home and in the company of our friends. We saw the characters we controlled and knew that their every move was on our shoulders. Those were the days of our lives.
Now, we find that video games have taken several turns for the worse. Instead of jumping on turtles and renegade mushrooms to save a princess, games are won by stealing the most cars and shooting the most prostitutes. That is deplorable. We also find among the crimes of modern video game makers that skill and adventure have been replaced by boring scenarios and pointlessness. We find the complex controllers of the Nintendo 64 and many of its modern sister systems unfathomable. And, is it only in Chuckonia that we prefer to see the character that we control on the screen? Having a God-complex is not so bad if it's contained inside the television set, as the player's ultimate power is. By seeing through the character's eyes, one loses the sense of care that players used to have and replaces it with a glazed-over lack of attention to detail.
Maybe these are just ramblings that are as pointless as the first-person-view games themselves, but we feel that America's children really were better off with the games of old. Not just because they didn't teach violence so realistically and bluntly, but because people actually thought and strategized while playing them. There aren't enough 2-player games anymore either. Video games used to bring people together. They were like the "front porch" of the world on days when it rained outside. Do yourself a favor sometime, if you're of our generation or younger, find a classic NES and play a few hours and remember the difference. And, if you're a parent, find a 2-player game and have some healthy competition with your child. Life is all about competition (whether with oneself, another, or an outside force), so why not practice competing a little and have some fun at the same time? That's the way we see it here, where classic Nintendo is still a way of life (since we own our fourth classic console) and flower power has nothing to do with Hippies but, rather, with fire flowers as it should everywhere - here, in nostalgic Chuckonia.

I Know Why the Caged Elephant Sings

2005-08-04T18:59:00.000-05:00

Today we return to the political realm for commentary, because we have been reminded recently of why we choose the Republican party as our political home. So, now for thoughts from the leader of the Chuckonian Federation...
I am a Republican and not ashamed to admit it. I find joy in knowing that others share my political party and many of my views. I also honor and respect my brethren on the other side of the aisle who wear a different idealogical brand and disagree with me on many things. One cannot survive without its counterpart. Unfortunately, some individuals on both sides take a "right vs. wrong" or "only us vs. only them" approach to politics. This is a destructive attitude in the American system of governement, as it clouds our ability to see truly beneficial solutions to a wide variety of problems, most of which are developed by a mixing of multiple ideas. As no one person has all the answers, neither does one political party. But, enough about domestic detente. One must also elaborate on his own position.
I had the honor, earlier this week, of attending a dinner here in Memphis featuring the Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, as its keynote speaker. Before the dinner, I also met and spoke with the Governor for a few minutes. My conversation with him and his speech at the banquet reminded me of the kind of Republican that I am (often not the typical conservative). I felt sorry for most of the Shelby Countians there that night, as they are rather well off and have spent much of their lives in that condition and, therefore, did not understand the kind of Republicans with which Gov. Huckabee identified. As great as that is, that is not what put me in the so-called "party of the elite." Governor Huckabee hit the nail on the head when describing his reasons for being a Republican. I felt as if he was speaking for both of us. I'm not a country club Republican, I'm just a country Republican. There was no silver spoon in the way of my first feeding back in '83. If all the stereotypes about Republicans are true, then I must be in the GOP because of what I want rather than what I have. That actually isn't half bad. Did this country not build itself on the desires of its citizens and not their status at the time? Why define ourselves by economic condition, when it is human nature to want more than we have. I think that even Bill Gates deserves to want a little more than he had the day before. It's as human as lust, thirst, hunger, or love. Equally human is the failure to always acquire that which we want immediately. But, now I'm getting overly-philosophical. Let me get a bit more political as we approach the runway of this flight.
Do I want the rich to get richer? Of course. They have every right to. As long as the poor can get richer too. The point here is that anyone, regardless of how much they have at any given time, has the God-given right to work as hard as they can for as much as they want.
Do I want lower taxes? Who doesn't? But, we must adequately fund our government's operations - foremost among them being the education of our youth. Budget cuts are hard to bear, but efficient spending only costs a little more brain-work to manage precious resources and funds.
Do I want the Supreme Court to stop legislating? Definitely. But, I want the Congress to start legislating and stop stalemating so no one else thinks that lawmaking is their job.
I'll get off the high horse now and leave you to ponder these and your own thoughts. Until next time, this is how we see things in Chuckonia...

Their License to Thrill Is Revoked

2005-08-03T16:15:00.000-05:00

Today, we tackle a cultural calamity of the 21st Century. It occurs to us in the Federation that many of our fellow lifeforms have taken to viewing things on television that do not, by our standards, qualify as worthy additions to the basic (and not-so-basic) cable lineup. What we speak of is, of course, the so-called "reality TV" craze. We use the term loosely, and only because that is the recognized jargon for the new fad in mindless broadcasting of the day. So, to the issue of "reality TV," here's the view from Chuckonia...
First and foremost, there's too much of this reality TV being pumped out by the networks and filling slots that could be happily occupied for years at a time by intelligently-written, expertly-produced, and generally entertaining programs. God forbid that someone should actually sit down for a while and come up with a situation for a situation comedy or a trackable plot for a drama. We don't want old stories and situations regurgitated, but how many times can we sit on the couch wondering which two reality stars may or may not hook up before they get off some island (which we think is a sand bar in someone's backyard lake)? What reality TV producers have done is taken the creative process and cut it off at the knees. They generate a "situation," here being the rules and conditions of the given show, and refuse to generate stories to push that situation. They go out and find five times as much cast as they would for a solid show, praying that at least one of these complete unknowns may emerge as a memorable "character," and leave the carrying of the story to them. Unfortunately for the real actors in the world, these "characters" are nothing more than people who play up their own personality for the sake of 15 minutes (sometimes literally) of fame.
Who decided that TV needed more reality (such as they call it) anyway? When we were growing up (though, in a way, we all still are), the most reality we wanted on TV was the 5:00 news before another rerun of "Diff'rent Strokes" aired. And what was ever wrong with the situations and plots of those days? Maybe this is just becoming an attack on modern television, but the problem at hand is that modern TV isn't presented as 100% fiction or 100% fact. It's a weird blur that is further distorting society's, already, pathetic grasp on (real) reality. The fact that TV was mostly fiction didn't make it unbelievable. We just knew the happenings on TV weren't happening right then. We still knew that four old ladies with little in common could get along in a house in Miami; or that an African-American butler could go to run a governor's mansion and within eight years be running for governor of that state himself; or that a lady could meet a fellow, know that it's much more than a hunch, and that their groups could somehow form a family, and make them all a very Brady bunch; or that a mortal man could marry a witch against the prejudices of her parents (ok, maybe not that one). Basically, TV was more real when it was obviously NOT real.
If someone from the pre-reality TV era were to get a TV Guide from the future (our present, for those of you who don't follow time travel lingo), this might be his assumptions of some of the current reality TV show titles:

"Survivor" - A "Rescue 911" kind of show chronicling stories of people who have overcome tremendous obstacles in their lives.
"Hell's Kitchen" - A drama about kids growing up in the ghettos of New York, facing gang violence and street thugs.
"The Real Gilligan's Island" - An E! True Hollywood Story mini-series telling about the making of the popular 60s TV series, complete with cast and crew interviews.
"The Simple Life" - A Martha Stewart-style home improvement and craft show, loaded with great cooking tips and expert advice to make your life "a good thing."
"The Surreal Life" - A sitcom about a simple country bumpkin who discovers royal roots and gets whisked away to rule some hardly-known but majorly loaded European nation.
"The Amazing Race" - A cheap made-for-TV movie knock-off of "Cannonball Run."
"Big Brother" - A MASH-like sitcom about CIA agents in the days after the Cold War.

We could go on and on, but the bottom line is that a well-thought, well-written script with good actors is far superior to the current trend of mindless, scriptless crap that accommodates an increasingly mindless audience. Now, all our "Survivor"-loving friends are ready to bomb Chuckonia and renounce their honorary citizenship of the Federation. Let us clarify that the audience is increasingly mindless because these reality shows are rotting your brains. We believe the brains of the reality-watching public existed but are fading fast. The world has enjoyed television programming since the late 1940s, but now, it seems that someone has revoked the TV's license to thrill and left us with far less valuable entertainment. That's the way we see it in Chuckonia.

Chuckonian View of an Iron Frist

2005-08-02T08:55:00.000-05:00

We hear that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has publicly changed his stance on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. In Chuckonia, we have complex and complicated views on stem cell research itself. However, we fully understand the political implications and assumed implications (by the media) of a move such as that which Doctor Senator Frist has taken. That is what we're here to talk about this morning - the implications, not the stem cells. We say morning as it is morning when we write, and we hope your morning is as bright as ours. And now, for commentary from the leader of the Chuckonian Federation...
As a Tennessean, a Republican, and a lay citizen, I like Bill Frist. He's had a great career as a doctor and philanthropist, and I truly admire the fact that he still practices medicine in some form even now as a Senator (working legislators had practically died out when the federal Congress took on a more year-round role many years ago). When making his support of federally funded stem cell research public, Senator Frist said that he was thinking like a doctor and a scientist. One cannot blame him for this, as he has been such for a far longer time than he has been a Republican or a Senator (the fact that he did not register to vote until he was several years advanced from voting age does, naturally, disturb us). Some would say that he's got nothing to lose in the Senate by disagreeing with President Bush, since he's promised Tennessee that he would not seek re-election in 2006 (a heated race of challengers has already begun here). Others say that he is only trying to appease the slightly more liberal Republicans in his possible quest for a 2008 presidential run. I doubt a Republican in any realm would see this issue as one so advantageous, since (quite honestly) most Americans do not understand the issue well enough to make it a "make or break" question when going to the polls. Therefore, I simply say that I am proud of my Senator, not for coming out against the President on this issue and not for playing what could be a brilliantly sly political move (if it were one), but for swallowing his pride and his politics in a world of media vultures and ignorant elitists and speaking his mind (as long as that doesn't include declaring "I am the Senate" in true Palpatine fashion). That is something we pride in the Chuckonian Federation.
As for stem cell research itself, we will not discuss it today. Perhaps in a later entry, when more thought and analysis can be given to the issue, we will. As for now, that's the view from Chuckonia.

Who we are in Chuckonia...

2005-08-01T20:35:00.000-05:00

I am Chuck, founder and leader of the Chuckonian Federation. While I am as full-of-myself as a small-town-bred Southern boy has right to be, I'm really a down-to-Earth and fun guy. I believe everyone deserves to have their own realm and their own avenue for venting, professing, agreeing, disagreeing, and sometimes just pissing people off. In this age of cyber-powered opinionating, I now have an easy and (scary as it is) global avenue to share my thoughts with others (for whatever they're worth).
To clarify, the Chuckonian Federation is more than just my God-complex made manifest, it has a past. I shall briefly explain. I have twice, at present, had the honor of serving as a counselor for Tennessee's Governor's School for International Studies, a program that I also participated in when in high school. As a counselor, I viewed without participating - most of the time. During the Model United Nations simulation in 2004 (my first year as a counselor), I sat in the back of an auditorium wishing to be in action again. I took a random sheet of paper and a blue marker and created a placard for an imaginary nation, called "the Chuckonian Federation." Over the following nights, I gave Chuckonia (for short) a whole fictional national identity. I won't go into all of that, but basically that is the namesake of my cyber-speaking realm. As I am the ruler of Chuckonia, I also may speak in the collective first person in this blog like the monarchs of old. May as well, since that makes an opinion seem more like it has a mass following.
Ok, more about me and the "conditions" of this blog. First of all, there are no real conditions, except that You, the Reader, do not take me too seriously and that You forgive my craziness, occasional fanaticism, quirks, and randomness of topics. This is a blog to contain serious opinions about not-always-serious things.
To offer some disclaimer before I actually start blogging (and this is in no particular order)... I am 21; a working college student; a Christian, a Republican; a Southerner; a rural small-town boy who grew up "in town" (not on a farm); a natural-born American; a Political-Science major and a political enthusiast (specifically, I am President of the University of Memphis College Republicans); a devoted fan of Star Wars, James Bond, and Ernest P. Worrell (God rest his soul); and, yes, as the name "Chuck" hopefully implies, I am a man.
I would also like to offer a word of thanks and a plug for another blog. My inspiration in this endeavor is another (and far wiser) blogger. My dear childhood friend, Donald Bryson inspired me to blog when I became a fan of his blog, "The Absolute." Be sure to check it out at http://appalachianvoice.blogspot.com/
With all that said, let's blog. Help me out, though, I need feedback.