Fun and Important Words - Boondocks

Boondocks is a word that is borrowed from Tagalog, being carried over from the Philippines by US soldiers in the early days of US colonization. In Tagalog, the origin word "bundók" actually means "mountain".  However, usage in the English language sees a meaning of a rural and sparsely populated area.  Another word for this is sticks.[1](1)  It is common to hear both "boondocks" and "sticks" used similarly, such as "out in the boondocks" and "out in the sticks".[2]   Either word can have negative connotations, being used to refer to areas where the people are backwards and unsophisticated.  However, when I occasionally use "boondocks", it's really just to describe an area that is out-of-the-way and deep in rural country. Although "boondocks" is often cited as entering English around the turn of the 20th Century, ngram shows it's use in writing didn't really take off until World War II.

Boondocks Fussbudget Gobbledygook Highfalutin Malarkey Newfangled Roust Twitterpated Whatchamacallit Whopperjawed

We, Terrorized (Part 1) ~ A re-imagined of Jack Nicholson's 1963 movie "The Terror" as a silent era film

The Terror is a 1963 movie that Jack Nicholson (yes, *that* Jack Nicholson), Francis Ford Coppola (yes, *that* Francis Ford Coppola) and others may wish to forget they made, but something about this movie works as a silent film stylized to fit the 1910's.  This movie has been re-imagined as that serialized black-and-white silent film.  Jack's acting style of his early career seems appropriate for this reinterpretation.  What results is a film that will terrorize us all, "We, Terrorized"!

The Terror is a public domain film with expired copyrights.  All music is also public domain, being entirely from the Silent Film Era prior to 1923.  This silent film adaptation, "We, Terrorized", is wholly an original work that is Copyright © 2021, Matthew Lorono, All rights reserved.

Why I don't fear a US Constitutional Convention and yet still do not want one

Also read Article 1 section 2
paragraph 3 of the U.S.
Constitution and why you
aren't being represented!

There are four methods to change the Constitution via the Amendment process.  

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” -Article V, The United States Constitution, 1787^[1]

That is to say:

• 2/3rds approval from the House and Senate, followed-up by ratification by 3/4ths of all states' legislators. This process has been used for 26 successful amendments.
• 2/3rds approval from the House and Senate, followed-up by ratification by state ratifying conventions within 3/4ths of the states.  This process has been used for 1 successful amendment.
• 2/3rds of state legislators applying to Congress (House and Senate) to create a Constitutional Convention, followed-up by ratification by 3/4ths of all states' legislators.  This process has never been used.
• 2/3rds of state legislators applying to Congress to create a Constitutional Convention, followed up by ratification by state ratifying conventions within 3/4ths of the states.  This process has never been used.

Guess what‽ It's actually harder to change the US Constitution via the Constitutional Convention method.  Congress is still heavily involved in the process. 

A Constitutional Convention doesn't get to magically change the Constitution at will.  All the Constitutional Convention does is provide a forum separate from the US House and Senate to discuss a proposed Amendment, then vote to bring the proposal to individual states, with a 2/3rds super majority required to do so. The requirement for ratification of the Amendment is still the same. 3/4ths of all state legislatures or 3/4 of ratifying conventions from all states.

The Constitutional Convention is a very unstable route to take, as fundamental questions about the process are not addressed in the Constitution.^[2] For example, there are no quorum rules for discussions once the convention is underway.  Also, does each state get one representative at the convention, or is representation equal to the Electoral College with voting among the representatives of a state to decide their state's vote?  Then, what happens if a state rescinds its application for the convention and the convention is no longer requested by the required 2/3rd of states?  What happens if such an application is rescinded during or after the convention takes place?  Since the convention is still organized by the US Congress, does Congress have the ability to limit the scope of the convention (i.e., "what's your hot take on this proposed amendment" as opposed to "go ahead and write a new amendment")?  Do the state applications limit the scope themselves?  If the scope is limited, could Congress or Federal Courts invalidate the convention approval if the scope is deemed to be exceeded?  Etc.

Anyway, I foresee that we'd have nothing short of a political quagmire if a Constitution Convention is ever established.  Most likely result is no changes will come of it, save for a bunch of lawsuits questioning every step along the way.  Those lawsuits may answer some questions about the process by the courts, but that would only benefit future generations in their attempts to have their own Constitutional Conventions.

Also see: How to find your US representatives and tweet them

Doctor Sleep and all, without spoilers

Movie sequels often fail in many aspects.  Sequels that come many years after the original often fail for even more reasons.  The filming style of the original movie is often clearly a product of the time within which the movie is made. If a sequel comes much later, there's very little chance of successfully capturing the same style and general feel of the original movie.  This is especially true of Kubrick movies and their sequels.  But the sequels don't have to be failures, even when they fail to recreate the original.

Two Kubrick movies now have cinematic sequels (not including TV series).  2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) continued the story of 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Doctor Sleep continued the story of The Shining.

2010, briefly

2010 was a good movie.  To its credit, it doesn't appear to even attempt to recreate 2001's style and feel.  Much like 2001 was a movie of its time (1960's), 2010 was very much a 1980's movie.  However, unlike 2001, 2010 hasn't aged well, though it is still enjoyable to rewatch (if you can overlook some of the inferior special effects and filming techniques).  If you wish to see full reviews, please see 2010: The Forgotten Odyssey - A Video Essay and 2010: The Year We Make Contact Review.

Doctor Sleep

Although Doctor Sleep (2019) borrows heavily from The Shining (1980) in terms of certain imagery and plot points, it is its own movie in other ways.  Mainly, Doctor Sleep is very rewatchable.  It pulls the curtain back on some of the supernatural elements of The Shining (trying to explain them), but does so in a way that works well for the story.  Doctor Sleep actually does a much better job of character development and arc.  

In The Shining, Shelley Duvall and Jack Nicholson never feel like a couple.  Also, the viewer never really gets the sense that it's the hotel itself that drives Jack's character mad; characters being very one-dimensional.  Despite the praise Kubrick often gets for his movies, and the fandom of The Shining, it's not a true masterpiece in my mind.  In fact, if you compare Rotten Tomatoes (RT) scores of Kubrick's films, The Shining is actually near the bottom of the list.  Even though Eyes Wide Shut has a lower RT score, I actually think it's a superior movie to The Shining.

Table featuring the critical reception of films directed by Stanley Kubrick

Year	Film	Rotten Tomatoes[62]	Metacritic[63]
1964	Dr. Strangelove	98% (91 reviews)	97 (32 reviews)
1956	The Killing	98% (41 reviews)	91 (15 reviews)
1957	Paths of Glory	95% (60 reviews)	90 (18 reviews)
1960	Spartacus	93% (61 reviews)	87 (17 reviews)
1968	2001: A Space Odyssey	92% (113 reviews)	84 (25 reviews)
1987	Full Metal Jacket	92% (83 reviews)	76 (19 reviews)
1975	Barry Lyndon	91% (74 reviews)	89 (21 reviews)
1962	Lolita	91% (43 reviews)	79 (14 reviews)
1971	A Clockwork Orange	86% (71 reviews)	77 (21 reviews)
1955	Killer's Kiss	86% (21 reviews)	N/A
1980	The Shining	84% (95 reviews)	66 (26 reviews)
1999	Eyes Wide Shut	75% (158 reviews)	68 (34 reviews)
1953	Fear and Desire	75% (16 reviews)	N/A

Character of Danny in Doctor Sleep is the adult version of Danny as a child in The Shining.  However, in Doctor Sleep, Danny is fully-fleshed-out character with purpose and solid reasons for doing certain things.  As with 2010, Doctor Sleep is more conventionally filmed than Kubrick movies.  But with Doctor Sleep, there is a unique style that makes it uniquely enjoyable, particularly when it explores supernatural interactions.  

The Shining has a few iconic scenes for which the movie is loved by many.  There's no question that The Shining has influenced our culture far more than Doctor Sleep can.  However, for me, I'd rather rewatch Doctor Sleep rather than The Shining.  That said, due to some of the choices made by the writer and director of Doctor Sleep, the movie cannot stand on its own in other ways.  It still needs The Shining as its foundation, due to all the callbacks and fan-service.  Even still, I wouldn't watch The Shining and Doctor Sleep back-to-back since the movies are so stylistically different; there isn't a good flow between them (even though they share some imagery).  Watch both, but watch them at different times.

Fun and Important Words - Fussbudget

Fussbudget is a word with a strange composition, and no one is really sure as to why.  A fussbudget is a hard-to-satisfy person who is excessively anxious, bothered or concerned about many little details; that is to say, a fussy person.[1][2](1)  The word "fussbudget" is presumably a compound of the words "fuss" and "budget".  The "fuss" portion of "fussbudget" is kinda obvious, if one takes it to mean "fussy" rather than just "fuss".  "Fuss" is simply to show unnecessary excitement about something.  Whereas "fussy" is being worried about details or not easy to satisfy.  The "budget" part of "fussbudget" is much harder to identify.  Many sources take it to mean a leather bag.  So, it might be said that the term comes from the idea of someone having a bag full of concerns.  This kinda makes sense, since we also have the word "fusspot" (fuss+pot) which carries similar meaning, but referencing a pot instead of a bag.[3][4](4)     I use this word from time to time.  I'm not going into details as to where and why since the word can carry negative connotations.  However, it's a fun word to use. In American English, there seems to be a marginal preference for "fussbudget" over "fusspot" according the ngram.  However, British English shows a strong preference for "fusspot".

Boondocks Fussbudget Gobbledygook Highfalutin Malarkey Newfangled Roust Twitterpated Whatchamacallit Whopperjawed

Fun and Important Words - Whopperjawed

Whopperjawed is a awesome word that really does roll of the tongue.  It's not a common word (yet).  You won't find it listed in any printed dictionaries.  However, there are some great entries for whopperjawed on Urban Dictionary. Whopperjawed describes something that is disheveled, askew, crooked, stuck in an awkward position, or any combination thereof.[1][2][3](1)(3)    One of the difficulties with establishing a common usage of the word is that it has many regional variations, such as lopper-jawed, wapper-jawed, whomper-jawed and others (with a hyphen or not).  Of these, "wapper-jawed" seems to be the most historic, with a recording as early as 1825.  "Whopperjawed" appears in a letter by Mark Twain in 1863.[4](4)   Although I don't use this word everyday, I do use it regularly, as situations arise.  It's is a fun word to say.  It's also fun introducing "whopperjawed" to others who haven't heard it before. Sometimes, but not always, the word may appear with the intensifier "all", as in "all whopperjawed".[5](5) Based on an ngram chart, "whopper-jawed" variant seems to be the most common.  "Whopperjawed" without the hyphen is the second most common.  Arguably these are the same thing since compound words often start out with a hyphen that is eventually dropped.  Whomperjawed/Whomper-jawed is the next most common variant.   Photographic example: Whopperjawed house

Boondocks Fussbudget Gobbledygook Highfalutin Malarkey Newfangled Roust Twitterpated Whatchamacallit Whopperjawed