Resurrecting the Rocky Blog

Author's Note: This is probably the greatest work I have written on a critical subject. Since I am having trouble during my personal writer's strike, I am reproducing the material here. Enjoy!!

This entry is much more serious than the previous posts. I have been known to seek out ways to get under people's skin, but I am generally harmless.

In merely one week, the sixth Rocky film, adeptly titled "Rocky Balboa" will appear in theaters. I originally felt conflicted with the idea that Rocky would come back for "one more round" 16 years after "Rocky V." The main reason for my feeling so was because I felt "Rocky V" effectively capped the greatest boxing film series ever produced. As a perfectionist, you never want to risk ruining a wonderful thing. After more reflection and soul-searching, I have concluded that a new Rocky movie on the 30th anniversary of the release of the original "Rocky" - which won the 1976 best picture - is an exceptionally great idea.

I know there are naysayers out there who parade around like true Rocky fans, all the while criticizing certain portions of the series. Many of these "fairweather fans" take shots at "Rocky V" for ruining the series, or "Rocky III" because Mr. T (not an Acadamy Award winner by any means) stars in it. There are certain critics who dismiss Rocky as an impossibly masculine miscue. There are also many of the rising generation that have been kept in ignorance about what I will term the genius of Rocky.

I wish to educate the critics and ignorant alike with the intention of explaining why each Rocky movie adds to the grandeur of great American films, leading up to the final chance for each one of us to participate in a God-given opportunity to watch the Italian Stallion fight (and I hope defeat) his newest, and toughest opponent yet, Mason "the line" Dixon.

ROCKY

It is impossible not to love this classic film. One must understand the impoverished state Sylvester Stallone found himself under when he was given a shot to become a big-time actor. Not only was "Rocky" a great story of hope for underdogs everywhere, it was a perfect parallel to Stallone and his "million to one shot." Rocky is just a downright good guy. He may not speak as fluently as someone who is learning English as a third language, but regardless, everyone loves to see a good guy succeed. But hold on right there. Rocky gets his chance to fight heavyweight champion Apollo Creed, but Creed wins the decision after 15 rounds of sheer will. Unlike many hero stories, Rocky does not come up victorious. But as long as Adrian comes running when he calls her name, he can get through any setback. Plus, Rocky still has Butkus. And losing only meant a second shot for Balboa. If you don't like this film, you're probably my mom.

ROCKY II

The drama unfolds and intensifies magnificently in the second chapter of the series. Rocky marries Adrian and then learns the hard way how unfeeling the professional business world is toward men who have not received more than a sixth-grade education. Adrian exhibits the love of a wife and the pain she feels while watching her husband get his face crushed for 45 straight minutes. She convinces Rocky that fighting is a thing of the past until Apollo starts publishing "Italian Chicken" advertisements in the paper, taunting Balboa. Adrian gets so stressed out, she goes into a coma after giving birth to "the kid" - Rocky's child whose name no one is ever sure of. This could be one of the reasons for the new Rocky.

I've probably described this installment in such vivid language that you stopped reading and went to buy it for yourself. If you are still crazy enough to be reading, one of the greatest scenes of movie history awaits you. Again, in the 15th round, Balboa and Creed both are knocked to the tarp. In gripping, nail-biting slow motion, Rocky somehow has the fortitude to lift himself off the canvas while the spoiled, pompous Creed cannot find the strength. Again, just how people would like things to happen in real life.

ROCKY III

For being the shortest film of the five, this one packs a lot in. Take Hulk Hogan, the wrestler, playing the roll of Thunderlips, which has had an impression on this writer for the rest of time. Take Mr. T, the superstar of one of the greatest shows of all-time, the A-Team, as Clubber Lang. Take Mickey, Rocky's manager suffering some sort of heart attack, forcing Rocky to continue without his mentor. Incidentally, you would assume the films would fall apart after losing such a dynamic character as Burgess Meredith, but this not the case. Rocky even gets his own statue and throws his motorcycle helmet at it in rage. Rocky loses to Clubber the first time, but after getting yelled at for acting like a wimp by Adrian, Rocky trains like never before and wins the second go-round. Then he fights Apollo at the end just for fun! How cool is that. Thunderlips, Clubber....what more could you ask for?

ROCKY IV

If you don't like this one, you're about as pro-America patriotic as Fidel Castro. Rocky's new buddy Apollo gets killed in a brutal exhibition bout with the evil Ivan Drago. Rocky reluctantly comes out of retirement again (something that Michael Jordan can understand) and trains in Russia with primitive gym equipment, while Drago trains with state-of-the art technology. Plus, the stakes are raised when Drago decides to use steriods. Women should love this one just as much as the others because once again, Rocky flounders until Adrian arrives to throw her support in his corner. One other funny point is that Stallone's (then) wife plays the role of Drago's wife, and her haircut matches Ivan's perfectly. Evil russians? Sylvester Stallone has gotten rich out of making them look evil. And what else do you need in a time where Russia (the Soviet Union) was still a serious threat to this country?

ROCKY V

How to defend this movie? Easy. I see it as a suitable conclusion as Rocky loses all his assets (thanks to troublemaker Paulie - Adrian's brother) and is obliged to move back to the old neighborhood. He trains an up-and-coming talent in Tommy "the machine" Gunn while ignoring his family responsibilities in the meantime. But in the end, Rocky figures out what's important - his wife and the kid - and he gets to beat Gunn up in the street. He also discovers that the building behind the steps he's been running up for twenty years is actually an art museum. Not to mention the heartwarming flashback scene with Mickey telling Rocky how much he loves him. And a final composition by Sir Elton John while the credits roll and pictures take us through all five movies. What a thing of beauty.

ROCKY BALBOA

I have only had time to hit on some of the high points on each film. I could talk about a number of other things - the talented actors, the brilliance of the soundtracks - songs like "Eye of the Tiger" and "Training Montage" I feel a bit of apprehension about the quality of this final installment, since the bar has already been set so high. But for those who are true fans, to those who love American classic films, I would wager you will love this one, too. A computer simulation pits Balboa against Dixon and the computer finds Rocky coming out on top. I don't know if the computer game was taking Balboa in his prime, or when he was 60, but Rocky decides to satiate his curiosity. I don't know how the movie ends, but I worry for Rocky, since Talia Shire (Adrian) is not starring in this film. Actually, I just saw some recent pics of her, and I can see why she maybe avoided this one. It would appear Stallone has been using the Botox with much greater frequency.

What is the genius of Rocky Balboa? It is that when you see a regular guy like Rocky get into the ring or live life against impossible odds, and then come out victorious, it makes you believe that somehow it will happen to you, too. So go out there next week, no pain, take his heart, cut him, hurt him, and watch Rocky Balboa. Then come back here and tell me all the reasons you loved it. Take your kids. Old people love him, young people love him, babies love him. If you don't, you don't. This isn't one to wait for to come out on DVD. You have to get to the theater. And if your wife says she doesn't want to see it, tell her about the family lessons you will learn, tell her you will watch "Pride and Prejudice" with her (and hope she forgets), do whatever it takes - and do it like there is no tomorrow.

Taking a Break

I'm saying goodbye to political rants for awhile. Stay tuned.

The End of Talk Radio

Tuesday I effectively swore off talk radio, if not for the rest of my life, at least until early November 2008.

I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck, or J.D. Hayworth, or Bill O'Reilly. Yet, while driving the automobile-supersaturated freeways of Phoenix, I find myself needing to be entertained - so I flip them on. And I listen. And it is all sort of hypnotic. And I listen way longer than I intended.

Maybe there's a caller making some inane argument about how the U.S. flag is the coolest, or maybe I get sucked in by the ever-so-seductive hook: "When we come back, we'll talk about...." which is repeated for three to four segments before the material is actually addressed. So when I say what I am about to say, I do not mean to extend the situation to all of you faithful dittoheads (ah, the disclaimer). But in the word of O'Reilly, "with all due respect," talk radio makes me a stupid, robotic, brainless, intelligence-starved, moron.

I've thought these things before, but who would have thought a meaningless incident involving some less-than-thoughtful observations by Michelle Obama, wife of presidential hopeful Barack Obama, would push me over the edge.

No, I am not going to go into the details of the matter. That can be accomplished by you turning on 550 KFYI, or the equivalent right-wing trash station you can find on your dial in your hometown. No, I am not a fan of Obama, not even close. In fact, I think electing Obama would be more of a mistake than electing Hillary Clinton.

But the Michelle Obama situation is emblematic of what talk radio really is: entertaining people with news that is not news, with information that is not important. While turning a blind eye to everything that could undermine their purpose, these jockeys pick up bits (ants, if you will) of information and blow them into veritable anthills.

Want to spend your time more wisely? I suggest doing anything else BUT listen to those clowns. Listen to some music on the radio (although that is almost as disgusting most of the time). Listen to an audiobook. Listen to your air conditioner blowing. Don't waste your life enriching the dregs of society.

Oh, yes, I am still talking to myself. And myself says TURN IT OFF!

Mitt Romney: The Sellout I Thought He Was

I was never a Mitt Romney supporter, but for some reason when I learned today that the expected happened: he will endorse John McCain for president, I felt my blood boiling a little more than usual.

While I never "endorsed" Romney, I was at the point of actually believing he might be our best presidential candidate who had a shot at winning. I liked his ideas and his background and leadership skills. Literally, the next day or so, he dropped out of the race. Now, just a week later, he is endorsing McCain.

It upsets me that I even came close to supporting this sellout candidate. The reason why it took me so long to warm up to him - his convenient changing from a liberal Massachusetts politician to a republican presidential candidate - ends up being the reason why he lost the race, and why I couldn't support him whole-heartedly. Put succinctly, you can't trust what Romney says.

He talked all the talk - Washington is broken, McCain is a liberal, we won't solve our problems by sending people who already work in Washington back to Washington, and so on. All of them sounded like reasonably sound and reasoned arguments. So what does the sellout do one week after he betrayed his entire support base? He tosses out all of his "principles" and supports a man who has none.

Just like he did to become a nominee.

I thought he was different, but unfortunately, Mitt Romney is no different, no better, than any of the other hypocritical, self-serving, special-interest-protecting Washington politicians. They have no principles, and neither does he. If he does, he values them as much as the average politician, only as much as it benefits him popularly and politically.

Recall the South Carolina Presidential Debate, if I am not mistaken, when there was a conversation between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul about fixing what one has broken. Well, Romney has said time and time again that Washington was broken, and yet one week after he bailed on his principles, he turned against them completely and fell in line with the "broken" establishment. Nice job, buddy. Turns out he's just another one of talking heads that really has not the slightest intention of turning things around for our great nation.

I can only sympathize with his supporters. They must feel stabbed in the back. But many of them will still follow Romney blindly, just like they did before. Who cares what he said in the past, he's Mitt Romney, and if McCain is good enough for him, he's good enough for us.

Not that we can be surprised. Another flop for flipping Mitt. Another sellout endorsing the sellout candidate.

Why would he do this so readily? The answer is simple: another victory for the failed "war on terror." We will have to visit this subject later, but it seems any principles you might have should be suspended in order to win against "the bad guys." This is no surprise - the current administration has continually eroded our freedoms to "protect us." So the final lesson is, no sellout is too costly when you can use terrorism and terrorists to help your party's chances of winning the White House in the election. And in the world of Romney, death by terrorists is synonymous with Democrat in the White House.

Thank goodness for the conservatives, the principled ones, the republicans, who sacrifice so much so that we can live a life free of say....the hell that people live through in a place like Iraq.

Compulsory Military Training

I found the following text on the awakeandarise.org website, on one of their blog pages. I would like to insert it here. This is the road we are on right now if we continue our confrontational foreign policy in the world: 18 to 42 year-old men will be drafted into duty. The funny thing is the proponents of this new bill didn't use the term "draft." Read on. Look it up for yourself. The "War on Terror" will be the perfect pretext for President Bush or his successor to implement these policies.

See: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-393

James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 6:, p.239-242

STATEMENT BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY REGARDING UNIVERSAL COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING

We print below a letter dated December 14, 1945, addressed by the First Presidency of the Church to each member of the Utah Congressional Delegation-Senators Thomas and Murdock and Congressmen Granger and Robinson. Word has now been received by the First Presidency from both Senators and both Congressmen expressing their approval of and belief in the sentiments, reasons, and conclusions set forth in the letter. The letter follows:

"Press reports have for some months indicated that a determined effort is in the making to establish in this country a compulsory universal military training designed to draw into military training and service the entire youth of the nation. We had hoped that mature reflection might lead the proponents of such a policy to abandon it. We have felt and still feel that such a policy would carry with it the gravest dangers to our Republic.

"It now appears that the proponents of the policy have persuaded the Administration to adopt it, in what on its face is a modified form. We deeply regret this, because we dislike to find ourselves under the necessity of opposing any policy so sponsored. However, we are so persuaded of the rightfulness of our position, and we regard the policy so threatening to the true purposes for which this Government was set up, as set forth in the great Preamble to the Constitution, that we are constrained respectfully to invite your attention to the following considerations:

"1. By taking our sons at the most impressionable age of their adolescence and putting them into army camps under rigorous military discipline, we shall seriously endanger their initiative thereby impairing one of the essential elements of American citizenship. While on its face the suggested plan might not seem to visualize the army camp training, yet there seems little doubt that our military leaders contemplate such a period, with similar recurring periods after the boys are placed in the reserves.
"2. By taking our boys from their homes, we shall deprive them of parental guidance and control at this important period of their youth, and there is no substitute for the care and love of a mother for a young son.
"3. We shall take them out of school and suffer their minds to be directed in other channels, so that very many of them after leaving the army, will never return to finish their schooling, thus over a few years materially reducing the literacy of the whole nation.
"4. We shall give opportunity to teach our sons not only the way to kill but also, in too many cases, the desire to kill, thereby increasing lawlessness and disorder to the consequent upsetting of the stability of our national society. God said at Sinai, "Thou shalt not kill."
"5. We shall take them from the refining, ennobling, character-building atmosphere of the home, and place them under a drastic discipline in an environment that is hostile to most of the finer and nobler things of home and of life.
"6. We shall make our sons the victims of systematized allurements to gamble, to drink, to smoke, to swear, to associate with lewd women, to be selfish, idle, irresponsible save under restraint of force, to be common, coarse, and vulgar, all contrary to and destructive of the American home.
"7. We shall deprive our sons of any adequate religious training and activity during their training years, for the religious element of army life is both inadequate and ineffective.
"8. We shall put them where they may be indoctrinated with a wholly un-American view of the aims and purposes of their individual lives, and of the life of the whole people and nation, which are founded on the ways of peace, whereas they will be taught to believe in the ways of war.
"9. We shall take them away from all participation in the means and measures of production to the economic loss of the whole nation.
"10. We shall lay them open to wholly erroneous ideas of their duties to themselves, to their family, and to society in the matter of independence, self-sufficiency, individual initiative, and what we have come to call American manhood.
"11. We shall subject them to encouragement in a belief that they can always live off the labors of others through the government or otherwise.
"12. We shall make possible their building into a military caste which from all human experience bodes ill for that equality and unity which must always characterize the citizenry of a republic.
"13. By creating an immense standing army, we shall create to our liberties and free institutions a threat foreseen and condemned by the founders of the Republic, and by the people of this country from that time till now. Great standing armies have always been the tools of ambitious dictators to the destruction of freedom.
"14. By the creation of a great war machine, we shall invite and tempt the waging of war against foreign countries, upon little or no provocation; for the possession of great military power always breeds thirst for domination, for empire, and for a rule by might not right.
"15. By building a huge armed establishment, we shall belie our protestations of peace and peaceful intent and force other nations to a like course of militarism, so placing upon the peoples of the earth crushing burdens of taxation that with their present tax load will hardly be bearable, and that will gravely threaten our social, economic, and governmental systems.
"16. We shall make of the whole earth one great military camp whose separate armies, headed by war-minded officers, will never rest till they are at one another's throats in what will be the most terrible contest the world has ever seen.
"17. All the advantages for the protection of the country offered by a standing army may be obtained by the National Guard system which has proved so effective in the past and which is unattended by the evils of entire mobilization.
"Responsive to the ancient wisdom, 'Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it,' obedient to the divine message that heralded the birth of Jesus the Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the world, '. . . on earth peace, good will toward men,' and knowing that our Constitution and the Government set up under it were inspired of God and should be preserved to the blessing not only of our own citizenry but, as an example, to the blessing of all the world, we have the honor respectfully to urge that you do your utmost to defeat any plan designed to bring about the compulsory military service of our citizenry. Should it be urged that our complete armament is necessary for our safety, it may be confidently replied that a proper foreign policy, implemented by an effective diplomacy, can avert the dangers that are feared. What this country needs and what the world needs, is a will for peace, not war. God will help our efforts to bring this about.
"Respectfully submitted, GEO. ALBERT SMITH, J. REUBEN CLARK, JR., DAVID O. MCKAY, First Presidency."

Agitation continued regarding universal compulsory military training into the year 1946. Rather than have Stake Presidents issue subsequent statements representing the views of their stake organizations in the matter, the First Presidency suggested in a letter to all Stake Presidents dated June 28, 1946, that the letter of the First Presidency of December 14, 1945, be reissued, where necessary and advisable, and sent to congressmen or senators "as indicating the views of the voters of the ward or stake involved."