Censorship Ought Not Be Celebrated

As the divide continues along political lines in this country as well as the world, it seems more and more that people are calling for censorship. What they're basically saying is they don't like the opinion of the person they want to censor, so they should be silenced. They have no problem celebrating when people are censored.

Lately, it's been mostly conservative and truther oriented people who question the narrative being put out there by the mainstream media. They are being deplatformed off of places like Twitter, Facebook and those sites. They're also having their ability to engage in internet commerce via places like PayPal taken away from them. And people cheer for this.

People ought to be troubled by this trend. The reason is obvious. It might be somebody they don't like being censored first, but as this movement gains hold, people you agree with will be censored. Maybe you will be next? You have to look at this and see the bigger picture developing. People still don't believe there's a movement buy the elite of the world to take control, tear down borders and implement their New World Order. This is something too complicated to discuss here, but you can certainly find that evidence relatively easily to decide for yourself.

What is happening here is no less than biblical. It's part of Bible prophecy. When this is pointed out, non-Christians and non-religious people roll their eyes and say it's fantasy. However, when you read these prophecies and look at the world and see them coming to pass, you cannot ignore them. It's been said that it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. If they believe it and are working on making it happen, you should be concerned.

With the censorship happening on the internet and the fact that people are losing their ability to buy and sell on the internet, something very dangerous is happening. The trend is only going to get worse. People will be scored in the new technocracy, and if their reputation is low enough, they too could lose their ability to buy and sell and engage in the conversation on the internet.

One of the arguments people use in favor of censoring people is that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are privately owned. You don't have a right to free speech there. If they decide to remove you from those platforms, it's their property and their right. It's not mentioned in the Constitution under your right to free speech. Again, since the censorship is happening to people that are unpopular with others, some people will turn a blind eye and let it happen.

But when the Constitution was formed, they had no concept of what an internet would be. You're free speech at the time was getting up on a soapbox in the public square and saying what was on your mind. People could come and go and listen if they wanted, but you had the right to be out there to be heard by those who would listen.

With the internet, these types of conversations are happening there instead. The founding fathers had no idea that this would be the case. More and more, we are plugged into the internet via our smartphones. They are with us constantly as we keep updated on the latest happenings. When we're not allowed to engage in the conversation there, our free speech is indeed being violated. the internet has become an extension of the public square soapbox.

The reason they want to shut everybody down is because they don't want dissenting opinions. They don't want conversation with differing views that allow us to arrive at a consensus. They want us to pick sides and divide us while they push an agenda through that may not be in people's best interest.

What is happening is much bigger than left versus right or Republican versus Democrat. The sides are just being used against each other while the agenda pushes through. When they call for censorship against opposing views, thereby allowing negative opinion to represent somebody without them being able to defend themselves, we are entering very dangerous territory. censorship of opinions, however unpopular, is not a good thing. It's certainly not what is done in a free society.

A Rock Band Is A Business

We tend to think of our favorite rock bands as the people who recorded the soundtrack to our lives. They do that, but they are also building up their brand. A rock band is a business. We don't think about that as much when these bands are in their heyday recording the new hits. Years later, when the radio station isn't playing their new music, the bands rely on the old hits. They rely on the brand name that they created

One of the shrewdest business men in music is probably Gene Simmons. Gene realized early on that not only was his band Kiss recording music that the youth of the day was enjoying, he also knew that he could market the brand and make even more money. Gene and fellow band member Paul Stanley never lost sight of that, and they've made very good money through the years. Some might say these guys we're corporate sellouts or overdid it or whatever, but really it's just good business.

As the years go on, our bands change personnel, and sometimes it's not a pleasant situation. Key members of bands are sometimes kicked out. Sometimes they want to be a part of what's happening today, and their bandmates won't let them. To the hardcore fan of whatever band, that can be difficult to accept sometimes. To the casual fan, when they see the name of the band that they loved in their youth still playing, they just go and see them. Personal doesn't matter as much as the songs they love being performed at a reasonable level.

We've watched the drama through the years regarding Van Halen. David Lee Roth left the band, there was a time when he might have rejoined and he upset the Van Halen brothers. Ultimately, David was welcomed back, but his replacement, Sammy Hagar, as well as longtime bassist Michael Anthony, seem to have been exiled. It's a business.

If you're a fan of Styx, you know who Dennis DeYoung is. He's the man who wrote a majority of the band's biggest hits. In fact, he wrote eight of their nine Top 10 hits. His voice is unmistakable, though he does not have the image of your typical rock star. Some people say he would look more at home on a Broadway stage. But when you listen to this guy sing he sounds like he did back in those glory days. He just turned 71 years old.

Rather than get into all of the particulars, about a year after the band's successful reunion tour, Return To Paradise Theater, things started to get shaky with the other bandmates. They felt Dennis was holding them up, and they ended up kicking him out of the band. Tommy Shaw and James Young, who were with the band through their most popular years, continue to rock with other people taking the other roles, along with the occasional appearance of founding member Chuck Panozzo.

This ended up in court. Dennis DeYoung did not go down without a fight, and he won the right to bill his concerts as Dennis DeYoung and The Music Of Styx. This was significant because, despite rumors that he didn't want to tour, Dennis has been touring at some level every year for nearly two decades. He surely wanted to continue to rock and perform the music of Styx. We can now say that it was a clash of personalities in the band. The thing is, people still want to hear the music of Styx performed live, and now they have two options. Will there ever be a reunion? Who's to say, but I doubt it.

Another band that has had some major controversy over the use of their name is the Australian based Little River Band. Pretty much a soft rock group with good harmonies, they recorded many hits in the late 70s. At some point, at the request of record executive Irving Azoff, the band was brought back together in the 80s. They signed an agreement that made them all equal partners in the corporation that owned the name The Little River Band. By then, they had recorded all of their relevant hits.

For whatever reason, lead singer Glenn Shorrock, vocalist and guitarist Beeb Birtles and vocalist and guitarist Graeham Goble all walked away. These were the three who wrote and sang almost all of their big hits. This left a man who did not record on any of the major hits, Stephen Housden, as the sole owner of The Little River Band trademark. Currently, Stephen doesn't even tour, but there is one singer from the tail end of the band's success, Wayne Nelson, still touring with them.

It has been messy in the years that have followed. Glenn Shorrock, Graeham Goble and Beeb Birtles attempted to tour as The Original Voices Of The Little River Band, only to be shut down by Stephen Housden. The Little River Band at the time attempted do some of the band's classics for a 40th Anniversary appearance on The Tonight Show, only to receive a cease and desist letter from the three founding members.

Legally, Steven Housden can do whatever he wants. Legally, he owns a name that he really did not have a hand in building up to the famous level that they had achieved. Is it fair that the people who clearly wanted to play the band's music live and tour were shut out? There are certainly differing opinions on the topic. Personally, I think it's a bit unfair that it has turned out this way, but life is sometimes unfair.

The bottom line to music is that while it is an art form and the musicians record songs that are dear to us, it is also a business. Years later, when your new music isn't being received to the level it once was, you can still tour on those big hits and make quite a bit of money. While a hardcore fan of The Little River Band knows that this band isn't what it once was, the casual fan remembers the hits. As long as the current band performs them in a respectable level, the casual fan isn't likely to care too much.

Dennis Rodman Goes To North Korea

Former NBA star Dennis Rodman went to North Korea, and the media here in America ripped him to shreds afterwards for not taking North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, to task for his government's polices.  Meanwhile, Google executive Eric Schmidt makes a trip there on business, and nobody seems to care.  Rodman dared to show the North Korean leader respect as he would any country's leader.  That was his first mistake, I guess.

At issue is Rodman's comments about the Korean leader being a great man and his father and grandfather being great men as well.  Rodman mentioned that Kim Jong Un suggested that President Obama give him a call so they can talk.  The flamboyant basketball Hall Of Famer even pointed out that the common interest both leaders share in basketball would be a good place to start a conversation.  How dare he.

Before I voted third party again, Obama intrigued me when he dared to say he wouldn't rule out speaking with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Just making that comment drew the ire of fellow candidate and Senator McCain.  How dare he suggest that he could just talk to the enemy.  Just talk, mind you.  Personally, I agreed with Obama on that issue.  We will only achieve real peace with enemies by talking to them.

I won't debate that Kim Jong Ill was brutal to the North Korean people according to everything we've been told.  People were forced to cry and wail for three days when he died, according to reports I've seen.  But the man leading the North Korean people is 28 years old and not the same person as his grandfather or father.  Maybe he would be open to change?  Maybe a conversation or two wouldn't hurt?

But, no, let's just attack Rodman for saying nice things about the North Korean leader while on a trip as an ambassador for the sport of basketball.  How dare he.  Doesn't he realize what countries are part of the Axis Of Evil?  I'm not suggesting that America and North Korea should be buddy buddy all of a sudden.  I just think there is no harm in at least talking and seeing if anything can be done now that North Korea has a new leader.

The Styx Reunion With Dennis DeYoung Will Never Happen

The current lineup that calls themselves Styx just did The Big Interview with Dan Rather recently. It seems that 20 years later they are still spouting some of the untruths, negativity and resentment towards the man who guided the band through their biggest success. This would be the success that allows them to tour now and sell tickets. It prompted me to finally come to some realizations that I feel like expressing here. Some may agree and some may disagree. I'm sad that it's come to this.

The Styx Reunion With Dennis DeYoung Will Never Happen

I consider Styx to be one of my favorite bands all time. One of the things I liked about the group was the optimism expressed in some of their lyrics. The idea that you're okay as you are and that you shouldn't be worried about keeping up with somebody who has a better image. Many times that image is fake anyway.

I came of age in my musical awareness in the era of Cornerstone and Paradise Theater. The latter album remains my favorite of the band, but I went on to discover their entire catalog and enjoy The Grand Illusion very much as well. Their music made me happy.

As a fan, you want to believe that the band is getting along and everything is good with them. However, it's all an image. I've grown to realize that a band becomes a corporation of sorts. It doesn't happen initially. Usually, you get a group of friends together who dream of making it big. One day, they get a record deal if they're lucky. One day, they make a hit song on the radio. If they're really lucky, then they can make a few more hits. When that happens, that's pretty much when they become a corporation.

What I mean by that is they now have an image that means something. The brand name, if you will. Look at it this way, all of the old bands that people enjoyed back in the 1970s and 80s, they aren't getting new music played on the radio anymore. Those days are gone. They can make new music all they want, but it won't go anywhere. People coming to their concerts want to hear the hits from their glory days.

At a certain point, you're stuck playing those old songs. However, many of these old bands realize how fortunate they are to have a musical catalog that people want to hear live many decades later. At some point, through lineup changes and all of that, one or two band members are the ones who own the name. Sometimes, key band members are locked out. It isn't that they have passed away or don't want to be a part of it. They are locked out from the group.

I finally got to see Styx play live when they did their Return To Paradise Theater Tour back in 1996. They sounded better than ever. I felt like the band was on their way to possibly making more hits. At that point in time, I strongly believe they could have done it. Dennis DeYoung was always the one who had the better sensibility about what worked for that band. However, when the opportunity struck, the other band members conspired to kick him out of the band.

If you remember VH1 and the Behind The Music series, you can see the hatchet job the other band members did on Dennis. It was never fun for them all of a sudden. I don't believe that. He was a dictator who demanded things be his way. I don't know about that either. While I do believe Dennis was the guiding hand, I don't believe anybody was forced into anything. Regardless, they kicked him out. They even said he didn't want to tour anymore, which has been proven to be another lie by them.

I did attempt to see the band without him not long after he was kicked out, and I left disgusted. Could they not have at least tried to find a person on keys who did his songs and sounded at least close to how he did? Other bands who have done a similar thing have done a much better job with the replacement member. It's almost as if the other two principal members didn't care who they put there. Just put somebody up there, because we're going to emphasize the music of our guitar player instead. We're going to revise what the history was. Whatever.

I've watched in the years that followed as Dennis has worked very hard to show everybody what he can still do. He recorded a far better album (100 Years From Now) than anything they have done since kicking him out, in my opinion. He is showing people he can still sing and play, and the man is 71 years old. To sound as good as he does is amazing.

My hope was that all of these years later, perhaps the band would have gotten over their attitude. Not saying everybody should become friends, but perhaps they would give us all one more tour. Sadly, I understand now that this will never happen. Maybe this has always been the case, but some of us who were holding out hope are now beginning to realize the truth.

My opinion will not be popular with the followers, and really I don't care. Without Dennis, those guys wouldn't be able to use that name and have it mean anything. Dennis was the guiding force that helped make all of that possible for them. Tommy Shaw wasn't even in the damn band when they had their first big hit.

I realize that Styx as I knew them is over. There's a band calling themselves that now, but that band is dead to me. I really don't care what they make or what they do. When I want to hear the Styx stuff live, I will just look to Dennis DeYoung. He's made a better attempt to create an authentic Styx performance than the band calling themselves that now. I look forward to the new album he's currently working on.

Everybody has to live with the decisions that they've made. Fair enough. But, those guys calling themselves Styx now aren't the noble and wonderful guys they have some people believing. They'll make the music, and people will go see it. They're doing okay financially, so why tamper with their model? They don't need to present the Dennis side of the band's catalog authentically. They don't even have to give fans some of the key hits that they might want to hear.

It's just the reality of the world. Greed runs the world. You think about music in a different light, but ultimately it's still about the money after a certain point. Those guys have the name brand with them, and the name brand allows them to do whatever they damn well please. Sadly, they've taken a name that once meant something and turned it into a tribute band. Good for them. I hope they enjoy their money. But the Styx that many of us would lie to see will never happen.

It's All Fake News

I watch and laugh at the people who keep pointing out fake news. Anything I don't agree with is fake news. That's the level it's come to. When Donald Trump pointed to the guy from CNN and called him fake news, followed by, your organization is terrible, I have to admit I had a really good laugh at that. On the other hand, it's kind of spooky to have the president of the United States say that about a news organization that has been around for as long as CNN has. You start thinking about countries that have banned media when the leaders didn't agree with them.

So, CNN has taken that as a war against Donald Trump. It's laughable. How many weeks since the beginning of this Russia nonsense, I'm not sure, but I happened to be in a restaurant that had a TV playing CNN. Sure enough, what was their news of the day? Russia and how it applies to Trump. Keep doing it CNN. You just don't get it.

This alternative media that established outlets are asking social media to censor has been around for much longer than social media and the internet even existed. Anthony Hilder produced records in the 1960s called The Illuminati. Check them out if you want to see people pointing out things that were coming in the future that are more obvious now.

Another person who was around back in the 1980s and was out in the 1990s talking about things that the media didn't want to talk about was William Cooper. Now, I know people are going to say, oh, the UFO Guy? Cooper denounced UFOs in the early 1990s and spent the last decade of his life pointing out what was going on in this world. He was a man who talked about the imminent situation that would be 9/11, and he said bin Laden would be accused of masterminding it. Months before this happened. He pointed out a lot of things. He had the book, Behold A Pale Horse, and he did the Mystery Babylon Series on his radio show, The Hour Of The Time.

Perhaps he lasted as long as he did because most people had no idea who this guy was. You had to actively seek him out in those days. He might be coming to some school gymnasium to do a seminar. He did those, and they were informative. You not only got the information he was willing to present, he taught people how they could set up their own newspapers and micro radio stations out of their own homes. Cooper was a doer, but people didn't know who he was like they do Alex Jones. In the end, he was eliminated. People don't remember him, which is sad.

He was reportedly called the most dangerous radio host in America, cited by Rush Limbaugh in some memo that Limbaugh supposedly got through the Clinton administration. Whether that was true or not, I don't know, but it certainly sounds like something that would have been said by Clinton after listening to Cooper.

But back in those days, it wasn't as easy to hear the alternative angles. There's a difference between fake news and alternative news. Fake news is a story completely made up. There is either no evidence at all or anecdotal evidence that's presented as fact. Alternative news is taking the facts that are there and coming up with a different interpretation than you may be getting from other media outlets. That doesn't mean that the facts are wrong. The interpretation is different and it's for the listener to decide.

This is the problem with all the news and why it's fake. You can find evidence of countless stories that have been faked by the mainstream cable media outlets. All you have to do is a basic search and see for yourself. Sadly, some people will look right at the examples and say they aren't real. They are so committed to that particular source that they don't want to consider the possibility that they are being lied to. They can get downright hostile if you tell them there's that possibility.

There are some interesting videos out there showing how the presidential campaign in 2016 was reported so unfairly. When you look at that, you understand the bias that was put forth against one candidate and for the other. It's there in front of you to see. Reporters and comedians laughing and saying that one person would never be the president while the other one was guaranteed victory. Afterwards, when all this reporting turned out to be ineffective in manipulating people to think a certain way, you saw footage of people crying in the streets.

The candidate who lost the election is now crying about how social media needs to shut dissenting views up because she would have won otherwise. It's not fair. There have always been people who looked beyond what was presented to them to find the real truth. You don't get the real truth from the mainstream media. You never really have, and if it was more truthful, that was many years ago.

Do you get the truth from the alternative media? Absolutely not. The alternative media has their own way of looking at things and shapes things to fit that narrative. This is not to say you're not going to get some truth from them, but you are going to be manipulated to think the way that they want you to think. They are simply using the tactics that they claim the mainstream media uses. They are no different. Even the most sincere of them is guilty of this. It's enough to leave you confused and wondering who to believe. Of course the answer is to trust in yourself and your own instincts.

I do not agree with the movement to censor certain people from social media. I do not agree with the assertion that these social media outlets are privately owned and therefore have a right to censor people with views that they do not like. When you take a company such as Twitter, for instance, when they have promoted Tweets, do you notice that they are all from the same left-leaning perspective? They can't possibly find anybody leaning from the right that is worthy of promotion? This would seem to indicate the political ideology of the people who run Twitter.

There is such a thing as free speech, and it does apply here. If you get onto the internet and the most popular search engine and the two most popular social media sites all have the left-leaning ideology that is to suppress opposing views, you have a problem. Because people mainly go through these channels, how do you suppose they will be affected if the only news that they are bombarded with is from the left and a certain ideology? Might they be affected over time to think that way as well? It's called propaganda when you don't have a choice.

What I see going on in the world today is people being so confused that they don't even know who to believe anymore. Years ago, even if society wasn't perfect, people had a little more sense that they could believe things that they were told. The world didn't seem such a confusing and hateful place back then. Times have changed, and perhaps they have changed because they are being manipulated in that direction? That's for you too decide.

When we have people questioning things that actually happened and saying it's a hoax, we have a problem. All shootings that happened are immediately called false flag hoaxes by some people. Known historical events are now questioned, such as the moon landing. Did we really go to the Moon? Now, people are even asking whether the Earth is round or flat. Maybe this all started with Roswell and the supposed UFO crash? Oh, the government is covering it up. Maybe this started with the JFK assassination and the further assassinations of other important figures in the 1960s? Whatever the case, many people these days are wondering who and what to believe.

I've come to understand that all of the media is fake at times. All of them. You can get truth from these outlets, but many times you're getting it from that perspective. The cable and network news is slanted in a certain direction. Talk shows on the radio are slanted in a certain direction. Alternate media is slanted in a certain direction. It's very easy to understand if you want to take the time to do so.

When you're listening to any news outlet, how do you feel about it? Do you feel content and comforted? Do you feel angry and outraged? Are you wondering whether you're hearing the truth or not or whether it's just anecdotal? Note how you're feeling and write down little notes on a piece of paper when you're unsure that what you're hearing is the truth or maybe you're not hearing the right interpretation. After you've gathered your notes, do some research on what it was you heard. Don't be surprised if you come to different conclusions.

What the so-called respected mainstream media outlets are counting on is that you won't think. You'll take their word for it immediately. Furthermore, they are the ones attacking alternative media. Don't look over there. They are fake news. The Russians are putting them up to it. The alternate media is using similar tactics as well.

What would be nice is to see the media report things honestly and let the viewer decide. Just the facts. That's what the media should be about. But, since we've had a television set in our home, it's been about television programming. Programming is the key word. It was going on then. It's just magnified many times these days. So when you're catching yourself saying something is fake news, be aware that it's all fake news to one degree or another.The current lineup that calls themselves Styx just did The Big Interview with Dan Rather recently. It seems that 20 years later they are still spouting some of the untruths, negativity and resentment towards the man who guided the band through their biggest success. This would be the success that allows them to tour now and sell tickets. It prompted me to finally come to some realizations that I feel like expressing here. Some may agree and some may disagree. I'm sad that it's come to this.

Did Kansas Rip Off Journey For Carry On Wayward Son

There's a guy on YouTube doing videos. His name is David Spuria and he calls himself The Real Music Observer. I enjoy his videos because he's talking about bands that generally don't get talked about anymore. If you're a Journey fan, you might want to check out what David is up to. Every aspect of the band seems to be covered by him.

I like David, but I don't always agree with his interpretation of things. I like that he gets people talking about the subjects that he brings up, and that's why I hope he continues to do this. He did a video asking if Kansas stole from Journey when they created their big rock and roll anthem, Carry On Wayward Son. I'll answer the question by saying, no they did not.

When you go back to the 1970's when both Kansas and Journey had gotten their record deals, neither band was really conforming to what the music industry expected of them. I will tell you this right now, neither one of those bands would have made it big had they began their run in the last few years. Back then, at least the music industry allowed bands to grow and find their sound.

Around 1976, there was pressure on these bands to come up with a hit. It forced a dramatic change in the band Journey, and it inspired Kansas to make two of the biggest hits in music history. Journey had a song on their 1976 album, A Look Into The Future, with lyrics sung by Gregg Rolie. It was called, I'm Gonna Leave You. Not a bad song, but not a big hit either. Kansas had begun to get FM attention with a song they had done called Song For America, but they were still looking for a hit.

The story of Carry On Wayward Son is an unlikely tale. Kerry Livgren wrote the song, but he didn't come to the band with this song early in the creative process. Fellow songwriter Steve Walsh was in a bit of a dry spell, so it fell on Kerry to write almost all of the content for their fourth album, Leftoverture. It was near the end of the creative process when he came to the band with Carry On Wayward Son.

This is where Journey fans sometimes try to say that Kansas stole the song I'm Gonna Leave You. The main riff in that song bears some resemblance to brief moments in Carry On Wayward Son. You can hear it just before the main lyrics begin with the, once I rose above the noise and confusion. That guitar riff may be all of about 30 seconds at a few different moments in the song. It's not even the main hook.

When they got to the studio, Kerry hadn't even written an a capella part to the song. We all know the beginning of the song when they all sing, carry on my wayward son. It was the band that came up with that together. That's an iconic moment in itself, because when fans hear that, they know what's coming. The main guitar riff in this song sounds nothing like the Journey song, and the lyrics for either of the band's songs are completely different.

In the music industry, bands may Inspire each other and sometimes write songs that sound in places similar to other bands. I can understand where a person might think that a band stole from another band. Led Zeppelin has been accused of this on numerous occasions to the point where they've had to give credit to other songwriters for some of their big hits.

It may be entirely possible that Livgren heard the Journey song, and while he was putting together what became Carry On Wayward Son, he was inspired a bit by what Journey had done. Anybody thinking that Kerry sat down and wrote that song because he heard the Journey song is either delusional or a hardcore Journey fan. This isn't what happened.

I understand that David is generating many hits on his YouTube page by talking about Journey and some of the controversies going on with the band. It certainly sparks a lot of conversation. David may be milking it just a bit because Neal Schon shared  the link to his video saying Kansas had stolen from Journey. In either case, the song was not stolen in this instance. It certainly gives people cause to speculate.

Carry On Wayward Son by Kansas - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X_2IdybTV0

I'm Gonna Leave You by Journey - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TlHv6UdIIM

One Of The Funniest Sitcoms Of The 1980's Was Night Court

Back in the 1980's, NBC TV had a comedy night on Thursdays. The show that gets forgotten in the shuffle is Night Court. This show was probably the funniest of the bunch, but you don't even see it in syndication much for some reason.

The show takes place in a New York court room at night, where liberal, idealistic judge Harry Stone presides. Harry's a good hearted guy with a sense of humor and a love of the music of Mel Torme. Harry Anderson stars as Harry and probably got the gig for his work on Cheers in his guest appearances there.

The show could go from off the wall comedy to messages that made you think. The show's heart was one of the things I loved about it. It had a positive message to it. This show was a nice anchor to the comedy block as it usually left you laughing.

John Larroquette won several awards playing the slimey, womanizing Dan Fielding, the District Attorney. Markie Post played Public Defender Christine Sullivan, who was known to wear her heart on her sleeve and had a love for Princess Diana and the music of Barry Manilow.

Charles Robinson played Harry's assistant Mac Robinson, and Richard Moll placed the big, intimidating, but lovable bailiff Bull Shannon. Two of the three actresses who played the other bailiff passed away. Marsha Warfield held that role and did a good job playing Roz for several seasons.

There were many good guests, including veteran actor John Astin as Harry's biological father Buddy Ryan. Buddy was a former mental patient ("But I'm feeling much better now"). You can have fun just spotting the cameo appearances of some actors who went on to bigger things, such as Brent Spiner of Star Trek fame.

Marathon court sessions were often good fodder for jokes. Harry would have to preside over so many cases before midnight, and that meant a late night for all. It could get crazy in the court room, and Harry would have to explain things and lay down the law. One time he explains and then asks, "Are there any questions?"

Somebody responds, "Why is the sky blue?"

Harry replies, "Because it it were green, we wouldn't know where to stop mowing."

The show had lots of laughs. If you can find it on TV and want to laugh, give Night Court a shot. You won't be disappointed.

I Wish I Could Have Been There

I wish I could have been there when Jesus was born, just to witness the miracle. I wonder could I bear to see Him on the cross that fateful day?

I wish I could have been there when the Founding Fathers signed The Declaration Of Independence and then when they signed The Constitution. We take those things for granted.

I wish I could have been there with Neil Armstrong when he first set foot on the moon. What a moment that must have been.

I wish I could have been there when Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I Have A Dream" speech. Powerful words from a great man.

I wish I could have been there with Bill Gates when he met with IBM. I wonder if the stories were true and he really sold them a program he didn't have yet?

I wish I could have been there to see Queen perform in their heyday and then to attend one of Freddie's parties. What fun that must have been.

I wish I could have been there when Dave Arneson led his first players on a role playing adventure beneath Castle Blackmoor, long before he called Gary Gygax about this game.

I wish I could have been there when Andrew Jackson shut down the big bank. It took guts to do that and years for the banks to come back from that in America.

I wish I could have been there in Roswell, New Mexico to see what really happened the day the UFO crashed. I'd love to know if it was real or not.

I wish I could have been there to see how the pyramids and the sphinx were really built. Their true origin remains a mystery to me.

I wish I could have been there to talk with philosophers Socrates and Plato about the world and the nature or existence itself.

I wish I could have been there to talk to J.R.R. Tolkien when he released Lord Of The Rings. Middle Earth was so beautiful, and yet there was so much he didn't write on the subject.

I wish I could have been there to see if Atlantis, Lemuria and Mu really existed. If so, were they as great as legend says they were?

So many places I wish I could have been all around the world when truly amazing things happened, but there's one more thing I wish...

I wish I could have been there when my father arrived on the other side to tell him and my sister I will see them again one day.

An Honest Look At The Corey Feldman Molestation Story

I can't help but be interested in the continuing saga of Corey Feldman and his story of being abused as a child and eventually molested.  What bothers me is the way Corey has overshadowed his co-star in many of his movies with his story.  That person is no longer able to speak for himself.  Because that person is portrayed as a victim in Corey's story, he has to be acknowledged here in what I'm about to lay out.  However, I will refer to this person as Corey's "colleague" as I analyze the evidence from clues I have seen.

The purpose of this is not to attack anybody.  I don't completely understand the ways of the mind when it comes to being a victim of molestation, but I have seen enough evidence to know it changes you.  I also believe both Corey and his colleague have been victims.  They come from different backgrounds.  Corey was pushed into this business before he knew which way was up.  His colleague grew up in a loving family and was not discouraged when he caught the acting bug. 

From the time these two met, Feldman had already been in the business for over a decade.  Corey was a "seasoned veteran" compared to his colleague, but his colleague had established that he too was very talented.  In the book Coreography, Feldman hadn't claimed any sexual abuse occurred on him by the time the two met.  However, I have my doubts.  Corey isn't putting it all in his book.  He's holding back.  This is not just because of his use of pseudonyms used at the urging of his publisher.  I am of the opinion that there was more going on.  He was used and abused by his parents, and nobody I've seen has disputed that.  What raises alarms is the naked boyfriend of his mother walking around his house when he was younger.  Naked adults in front of children is not normal behavior.  I can't prove anything here.  I'm just saying it raises alarms.

Corey's colleague is depicted in the book as having made a phone call to him as they were set to do their first movie together.  Nobody has disputed that claim.  The mother of Corey's colleague has even said that the two were close in the beginning.  I'm guessing we are talking about a 4-5 year span.  This is where it get's disturbing and fingers are pointed in blame.  Corey is being called a liar.
Feldman almost depicts his colleague as being gay. He explains it in his book by saying he really didn't understand it himself and now realizes it was wrong to think that way.  His colleague is portrayed as wanting to "fool around" with him because "that's what guys do" according to what he says his colleague told him.  He further states that his colleague said he was molested on the set of a movie he filmed in 1985.  This has caused a wide range of speculation from people who want to out the pedophile who attacked Corey and his colleague.  Names are being thrown out there without any evidence.

Did something happen to Corey's colleague at that point?  According to his colleague's mother, the answer is no.  I am mixed on this.  His colleague's mother had a close relationship with her son.  However, does that mean he would tell her everything?  When it happened, there's a good chance he wouldn't because of the shame involved.  Then, as he turned to certain substances and began his downward spiral, I would totally understand a loving mother feeling that this is somehow all her fault.  She knows of his abuse of these substances.  How will she react and beat herself up if she knew there was molestation involved?  This is speculation here.  It's Corey's word against his colleague's mother.

Here's where it gets disturbing.  Corey finally starts naming names in his book (under pseudonyms).  He can't (or won't) come out and name them all, although he names Marty Weiss as somebody who molested both he and his colleague.  Marty has been convicted years later of this crime on another boy.  When you read the book, Corey still paints it like he was a victim but his colleague was almost asking for it.  Could you blame his colleague's mother for taking offense? 

However, consider this.  Corey almost looks like a pimp here without making the money.  In his book and even on the Lifetime movie based on the book, he suggests Marty is gay and Haim could play with him.  Why would you admit introducing a boy to a pedophile?  Isn't that some sort of crime?  So, is it made up?  If it was made up and he knows his colleague is no longer here to dispute it, why would he describe it in a way that makes himself look bad in his book?

As Corey lays out the abuses in his book that he says happened to him, he went on Dr. Oz late in 2017 and revealed the names of Jon Grissom and Alphy Hoffman as two people who molested him.  Like Weiss, Grissom was basically a care taker for Corey.  Hoffman ran the popular Soda Pop Club parties, which is where you get into the possibility of a pedophile ring.  Feldman has been saying there was a pedo ring.  Hoffman suspiciously closed his Twitter account around the time that Corey named him on Dr. Oz.

He's not through with his colleague.  He introduced him to another molester, and again Corey depicts it in his book as if his colleague wanted it.  The disturbing theme where his colleague is concerned is Corey's book paints it like his colleague was consenting to gay sex with an adult.  His colleague's mother has confirmed that something happened here as far as she knows.  She says it only happened once, and the guilty party, according to her, is Dominick Brascia.  Feldman used a pseudonym in this instance, but clues point directly to Dominick.  Corey has yet to publicly confirm that the man that his colleague's mother identified is the same man he eludes to in his book.

What I find interesting is the way Corey portrays his colleague.  There's almost a bit of jealousy here, although Corey's movies before he ever met his colleague did well.  He is a good actor in his own right.  He mentions his colleague snagged a role that he wanted before they met and also that his colleague snagged the role he wanted in the second movie they did together.  Corey got the lead in the third movie, and his colleague managed to snag a supporting role at the last minute.  When you look at the interviews, it's obvious Corey was not pleased.  His colleague didn't see a problem.  My opinion is his colleague at that time considered Corey a close friend, maybe moreso than Corey thought of him. 

They went their separate ways at that point and battled their own demons.  Corey appears to have made it through and revived his career as at least a B Movie actor with several starring roles right up until not too many years ago.  His colleague struggled, but it seems to me Corey was always willing to throw him a bone when he felt his own career needed a jump start.  I'm unaware of his colleague ever saying no to one of these offers.  From my view, it seemed as if Corey had the upper hand here.  The first two movies they did in the 1990's were without incident, but it all came unraveled when they were doing their 1997 movie.

Feldman directed this one and decided to hire his friend Brascia.  We have two conflicting stories here.  In Corey's story, his colleague was too messed up on drugs and he had to make the difficult decision to fire him.  Stories from his colleague's camp paint a different picture.  His colleague had been able to process what happened to him in the 1980's and reacted badly when he saw Brascia on  the set.  He ended up quitting at that point.  I have to wonder if this incident was the first time Corey's colleague's mother was aware of anything happening to her son.  People seem to think only Corey or his colleague's mother are right here, but both could be telling the truth.  She can be right if she is just being honest in saying this was the only time (to her knowledge) that it happened.

Here's where it gets murky.  I've read people from the camp of Corey's colleague claim that nothing ever happened to Corey and that he's making it all up because his colleague came out on an episode of their reality show and accused Corey of doing nothing when Corey's friend raped him.  To the accusation that Corey is making up his own victimization.  He is on tape saying it happened to him when talking to the police during an investigation in 1993.  He has said this happened to him through the years.  Secondly, Reality TV is scripted.  Corey and his colleague knew what they were going to talk about before it was filmed.  They agreed to do it.

One thing that disturbs me and makes me understand that while they were colleagues and at one time very close, they weren't best friends in later years, is the way Corey did not have his colleague's back when the opportunity to do a sequel to their first movie became a reality.  Feldman knew this was his colleague's baby.  He knew this was not going to be given the treatment it deserved, on a par with the first movie.  He could have declined, but he didn't.  Easy for me to say?  There are some lines real friends won't cross if they care about the other person.  Furthermore, I never heard Corey say he tried to stop those final episodes of their Reality TV show from going on air when they painted his colleague in such a bad light.  In fact, Corey's wife at the time used it to throw Corey's colleague under the bus.  People watch reality shows and think they are real, and Corey's colleague was thrown to the wolves again.

You also have guessing games being played because of Feldman's book.  Name his colleague's abuser.  Corey says he will get sued, but there are ways to get that name out there if it really happened.  Maybe it did, but handling things the way he's handling them is only making it a joke.   It's basically pissing on his colleague's grave at this point.  Dominick Brascia, a man Corey was friends with and still won't name as an abuser, has stepped forward to point fingers too.  A year after the incident on the set of the movie that was released in 1997, there was an E True Hollywood Story about Corey.  It was also updated as the reality show was set to debut.  Brascia is one of the people interviewed about his friend Feldman.

Brascia did an interview with The Enquirer naming Charlie Sheen as the one who molested Corey's colleague on the set of the movie they did in 1985.  He basically claimed that Corey's colleague was his good friend.  A YouTube video made by one of Corey's colleague's supporters is calling out Feldman and Brascia to take lie detector tests.  In the comments, Brascia tells a story of how he and another friend were called by Corey's colleague to a park to back him up as he confronted another man.  This was inferred to have been a molester of Corey's colleague.  His name is Marty Weiss.  This means Brascia has attempted to publicly name two people, while Corey's colleague's mother has directly named Brascia as the perpetrator.

To add just a bit more to the story, a video posted on YouTube in 2014 shows Corey at the 25th Young Actors Awards ceremony (2004).  Feldman's brief speech included a thank you to Marty Weiss.  Feldman did comment on it on Twitter recently, saying he was told before going on that he had to thank him.  He what?  The man is a pedophile, which you knew at the time, and you thanked him?  Furthermore, he and his wife at the time posed for a picture with Weiss.  At the time, Weiss hadn't been convicted of being a pedophile.  However, there is a lot more going on here than we are being told.  As I've listened to all of this, I have come to a realization.

Corey's colleague is not getting the respect that he deserves.  You rarely even see him mentioned without Corey.  Nobody is out there talking about what a star he was in his own right, and he was not given the respect that he deserved for the good he did.  There was no mention of him among the other stars we lost at the next Academy Awards ceremony.  If you do believe Corey knows the truth, dragging this out as long as he is is only tarnishing the career of an actor who is no longer here to speak for himself.  Say it and move on.  This is why I have decided that in anything more I write about Feldman, I will do my best to leave his colleague's name out if it.

His colleague's mother had a simple request.  Leave him out of it.  She had another request after he died.  I will talk about that, but not here.  I think it's only fair that he shouldn't have to be billed in the same story with Feldman.  Yes, they did movies together, but he had a career on his own too.  What I truly wish is he could be remembered for the good he did during his time.  As for Feldman, he has a lot of explaining to do about things, and he is only making it harder for anybody to believe him with his actions.

Note: The opinions expressed are mine alone and based on the information I have as of this writing.  I am not trying to blame anybody, but I am trying to understand what is really going on.