This has definitely been a long week for Hollywood, with the death of three icons (two in the same day).  While some deaths may not have been suprising (because the icon had been ill for quite some time), another left the world asking “why?”.

Then, our little state lost its own icon in a tragic death that has no rhyme or reason….and just makes you wonder what makes a guy  rip away someone else’s life, leaving everyone else in a pool of his aftermath.  I’ve always struggled with this – what happens inside someone’s head that makes it “okay” for him to destroy not only the victim’s life, but, the lives of everyone around them – both the victim and the murderer.

I am confident, in the case of Ed Thomas, that the townspeople of Applington-Parkersburg will get this through this.  There are calls for prayers for both the Thomas family and the Becker family….but, gosh, what a terrible thing.  And the townsfolk that I’ve watched in interviews – both after the devastating tornado last year and Coach Thomas’ death this year….in general, they appear to be strong Iowans….who pick up the pieces, deal with it, and keep moving forward.

While we are on the topic….when there are MULTIPLE witnesses to a shooting, why is it that the shooter is still presumed innocent?  I know that it’s the way our justice system was set up….but, when someone is clearly guilty (the person who commited the crime)….is that really necessary?  Maybe if there is more than 20 eyewitnesses (since we all know how unreliable eyewitnesses testimony can be), we can just skip the “potential gunman”, and go straight to – this guy did it.

Back to the losses of our national icons.  It kind of makes me angry that everyone continues to bash Michael Jackson after his death.  He was strange – eccentric – but, that isn’t criminal.  He had a terrible time (from the sounds of it) managing money – again, NOT criminal.  And, if you all remember….he was found not guilty of the charges.  Weird that many people presume he was guilty when he was found not guilty (without 20+ eyewitnesses)….but, a guy who is CLEARLY guilty of murder (back to the Iowa Icon’s death) is still presumed innocent.  How screwed up is that???

No matter what Jackson’s personal issues were – he was eccentric, not very good with money management, not super good at choosing the people around him wisely, terribly misunderstood, frail but not frail, addicted and not addicted, etc….he was a great artist who changed the face of music videos and music itself.  I liked his music when I was younger, and was ALWAYS amazed at his artistry.

I think this is more of a case of people not understanding the mind of an artist.  They have a tendency to see the world much differently than a non-artistic person….sometimes, people think they are just an “odd duck” and sometimes people think they are a total freak….but, in the end, in my opinion, it has to do with living in a different side of our heads.  He was what I considered an “upper level” artist – someone who was not only artistic, but, one who was almost a prodigy.  Those artists don’t come along often – but, they *almost always* have “issues”….So, while us common artists are considered a little odd…..the prodigy type artists are “cut-off-my-ear” type  odd – again, not criminal….but,  that living in that side of your head at that intensity couldn’t possibly make you more normal than the average artist….if anything, it would push you in the other direction.  The perfectionism that comes with it….well, that never helps a person emotionally.

And, Farrah….I have to say that I couldn’t imagine going from a “sex icon” to releasing a documentary on your struggle with cancer.  But, I think allowing people to see that not-glamorous battle demonstrated, in a big way, her spirit – it was very important to her for people to see that battle that every day people face and the fact that she was a “sex icon” when she rose to fame didn’t stop her from showing the raw ugliness of cancer and the treatment of it.  I *didn’t* watch the documentary…when I was flipping through the channels, I saw it, but, watched less than 2 minutes and found myself wondering why someone would watch the whole thing – not because of the documentary, itself…but, more the subject matter.  I found the whole idea to be very sad and borderline morbid.

Then, there was Ed McMahon….some people said they were shocked when the news of his death was released….but, I am not sure why.  He had not been in good health for several years.  EVERYONE – even people who didn’t see Carson/McMahon on the tonight show know that great “Heeeeeeeeeeere’s Johnny!” – and you see people trying to come up with that great one line that everyone will remember them by all the time.  McMahon was definitely an original.  I’m also sad that he will never come to my door with a check for 10 million dollars!  I never thought of McMahon as a “pichman”….but, when I heard him referred to as a great pitchman, I had to agree….his name gave credibility to many things that otherwise wouldn’t have meritted a second glance.

All in all, a very sad week.  I hope, as time passes, we will be able to recognize the best of those we have lost and understand that what we see on the surface can easily be misunderstood.

Two posts in one day? I know…it rarely happens.

On my drive to the city today, I recalled an excellent explanation regarding world government/ideologies/societal structures that I read as a forwarded email years ago (see the last definition below to get a feel for when…it was highly relevant at the time I read this originally). With all the talk of socialism vs. capitalism vs. communism etc, I thought it was appropriate to find the fun and simple explanation and post it to give everyone some simple clarity on where we may be headed.

I do not have the original author information to give credit where credit is due. So, if you happen to know the original source (or *are* the original source), please let me know and I will update the post to reflect the source information.

Read these closely…..and feel free to replace “cows” with property that is more personally relevant to you (or, you can just insert CAR COMPANIES and you will get a really good idea, considering Chrysler and GM’s dispositions as of the time of this post).

Feudalism

You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

Pure Socialism

You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you all the milk you need.

Bureaucratic Socialism

Your cows are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs the regulations say you should need.

Fascism

You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

Pure Communism

You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

Real World Communism

You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker about who has the most “ability” and who has the most “need”. Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.

Russian Communism

You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the black market.

Perestroika

You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the “free” market.

Cambodian Communism

You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

Militarianism

You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

Totalitarianism

You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

Pure Democracy

You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

Representative Democracy

You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

British Democracy

You have two cows. You feed them sheeps’ brains and they go mad. The government doesn’t do anything.

Bureaucracy

You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

Pure Anarchy

You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

Pure Capitalism

You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Capitalism

You don’t have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don’t have any cows to put up as collateral.

Enviromentalism

You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.

Political Correctness

You are associated with (the concept of “ownership” is a symbol of the phallo centric, war mongering, intolerant past) two differently – aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.

Surrealism

You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Enronism

You have two cows. You borrow 80% of the forward value of the two cows from your bank, then buy another cow with 5% down and the rest financed by the seller on a note callable if your market cap goes below $20B at a rate 2 times prime. You sell the three cows to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so you get four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. This transaction process is upheld by your independent auditor with no negative balance sheet implications, followed by a press release that announces that Enron, as a major owner of cows may begin trading cows via a new internet site.