The Walking Dead

Mid-season finale (whatever that's supposed to mean) tonight at 9:00 on AMC.

Rasslin'

Anyone who knows me knows I am a fan of professional wrestling...Well, not so much now as I was of the glory days of Championship Wrestling from Florida, Georgia Championship Wrestling, Mid-South Wrestling, and Mid-Atlantic Wrestling, all of which were under the banner of the NWA. I never really liked AWA or WWF as their wrestlers and commentators seemed one-dimensional, unlike Gordon Solie, who could call a match with the greatest of ease. I'm not here to talk about commentators (for surely Jim Ross could give Gordon a run for the money in today's market), but wrestlers; more specifically, tag-teams. Who were the greatest tag-teams of all time? There has been much debate over this throughout the history of the sport (or is sports entertainment the more appropriate term?), but no difinitive answer has ever been given...UNTIL NOW!!!!! This is my list of the greatest tag-teams ever, and while you may recognize some names and not others, or doubt the importance I have placed on one particular team over another, just keep in mind that this is my personal list. Yours may vary, and you are free to post your own. That being said, and without further adieu, I present to you The Ten Greatest Tag-Teams of All-Time.

10. Abdullah the Butcher and Maniac Mark Lewin. They weren't together long, but they devastated everyone they ever wrestled against.

9. Robert Fuller and Jimmy Golden. WHO? WHAT? Yup. Mid-South's underdogs who always found a way to pull out victories against such teams as Jos LeDuc and Mongolian Stomper, The Von Erichs, and Abdullah the Butcher and Iceman King Parsons to name just a few. They deserve a place here, if for no other reason than Robert Fuller was Col. Parker, who, in his later years, managed Harlem Heat.

8. Degeneration X. Of course they are going to appear here, just not as close to #1 as some may like. They were the precursors to the WWF's "Attitude" era, and they performed in that regard very well.

7. Mr. Wrestling and Mr. Wrestling II. This one may just be purely for nostalgia's sake, and if it is then so be it. They rocked!

6. The Rock and Roll Express. High-flying, exciting to watch, tough as a two-dollar steak. These guys were 100% pure adrenalin.

5. The Steiner Brothers. They were collegiate wrestlers before "going pro," which meant they brought to the table the skills that should have made them life-long champions.

4. Arn Anderson and Tully Blanchard. They were the core tag-team of the Four Horsemen, and it wasn't brag because they could back it up.

3. Ole and Gene Anderson. The Minnesota Wrecking Crew. The well-oiled machine. How many people did they cripple along the way?

2. Mike Graham and Steve Keirn. As far as in-ring presence, these guys had it all: pure wrestling ability, likability, and the fact that on any given night they possessed the tools to defeat every tag-team out there.

1. Every knee must bow and every tongue confess that The Hawk and The Animal, The Road Warriors, be placed here, and I'm not talking about the crappy WWF version, but the team that dominated NWA and WCW.

So there you have it. I'm sure teams such as the Von Erichs, Harlem Heat, the Briscos, Paul Orndorf and Jimmy Snuka, the Valiants, Shock Troops, Assassins, Spoilers, and others could have found a place in the top thirty, but that is where they belong. Oh, and what about the Dudleys? What about them? As for the Superpowers (Dusty Rhodes and Nikita Koloff), the Megapowers (Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage), NWO (Kevin Nash and Scott Hall) and the Sheepherders (The Kiwi Sheepherders were better by far), look for them in the top 30 as well.

G or J?

When did the G in Ghengis Kahn's name go from a hard "G" to a soft "J", to be pronounces Jhengis Kahn?

Is Self-Justification and Self-Rationalization Equal To Truth?

The question, as it stands, is legitimate if for no other reason than truth is abstract. Truth is not complete facts, just the facts as we know them, or rather, choose to believe them. Yes, I am getting to a point here, so bear with me. A completely heterosexual male may meet and become attracted to any given female on any given day. If the male likes her well enough, he will pursue a relationship with her. If, during the course of their courtship, the female discloses she is actually a hermaphrodite, and the male accepts this of her, is their continued romance equivalent to a homosexual relationship? Obviously, the female has no control over how she was born, and the fact that she has lived her life as a female states how she identifies herself in terms of gender. The male, however...His acceptance of the female is based solely on how he perceives her--which is how she perceives herself--thus he is not categorized as homosexual. If the female's penis raises in the male a "Bi-curious" feeling, would exploring that necessarily make him homosexual? Is he, in fact, committing a homosexual act by simple virtue of the fact that he wishes to sate his sexual curiosity of the penis? This is touch and go in that even though the penis is on the female, it is still a penis; yet hermaphrodites do not have a clitoris. Why is this? What, exactly, is a clitoris? It is the remnant of a penis. With that fact exposed, are all males who perform oral sex on a female secretely fulfilling a desire to perform oral sex on a male, or phallys of any kind? Does the fact that one may prefer a larger clitoris to one more miniscule prove that individual has tendencies greater than another? My point is, we call a clitoris a clitoris and a penis a penis when the fact is they are one in the same. So, is the male who wishes to perform oral sex on the hermaphrodite's penis committing a homosexual act? Is he fulfilling a homoerotic fantasy by doing so? Does he justify this by classifying things as I have just stated? Self-rationalization and self-justification are the keys to answering this. His truth may say no, and someone else's may say yes. Take this a step further. Same scenario: Man meets a wonderful woman, yet this woman discloses she is M2F Pre-op Transgender. The man decides he will continue dating her anyway. If she chooses to live her life as a woman, and he chooses to accept her as a woman, is she not a woman? During sex, is the clitoris/penis issue really an issue? Yes, she does not have a vagina, but she has what is referred to as a penis and can be referred to as an extremely large clitoris. Does the mindset of the male play a factor in this, does HIS truth mean anything, or do we judge him by what society says should and shouldn't be? The bottom line is this: We live in a world where love...Real, true, honest acceptance of two people..is a rare thing. Allow those who find happiness to keep their happiness. Our truths matter so very little where other's lives are concerned.

Analysis of "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?"

Duncan S. Jackson

English 2130

Mr. Ruddle

T/R 3:30p-4:45p

Analysis of “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?”

Joyce Carol Oates’ “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” appears in Chapter

5 of Legacies (51-61) under the heading “Crossing the Genres: Identity and the Body.”  While a

perfunctory reading of the story may leave some readers satisfied with the notion that we have

before us the tale of a promiscuous young woman who, much like her teen-aged friends (and all

teens for that matter who believe they will live forever), throws caution to the wind and eventual-

ly becomes the target of a crazed sex offender and his silent but willing partner, a more circums-

pect perusal reveals the overwhelming depth and outright genius employed in bringing to life not

just a story with real, identifiable characters, but a timeless piece that could be introduced in this

day and still retain its symbolic significance. While this offering by Ms. Oates quite literally

draws upon facts detailed from Charles Schmid’s murder of Alleen Rowe, her story is steeped in

Biblical lore as well, from the title itself right down to subtext, and what she has provided us

with is nothing short of Satan attempting to beguile the lead character, Connie, with no promise

that she will make it safely through the ordeal.

Connie is no angel; let’s establish that from the beginning. At 15 she is a vain, promis-

cuous, lying teen-ager who has wished her mother dead (51), and it is that very same mother who

is not shy about pointing out that “…her (daughter’s) mind was all filled with trashy daydreams”

(51).  Connie knows what she wants, and has no qualms (or apparent matters of conscience)

when it comes to attaining these things, which translates into a blatant worship of worldly plea-

sures while exercising a complete and utter disregard for spiritual fulfillment which, as Biblical

scholars and theologians both will agree, is an invitation to allow Satan to be the predominate

influence in one’s life.

     Ms. Oates has made several very real references to the true identity of Arnold Friend, both as

Schmid and as Satan. His name itself—Arnold Friend—can be deciphered in many ways: Are no

friend; An old friend; An old fiend just to name a few, but is it coincidence that the number of

letters in first and last name add up to 6 and 6? Ms. Oates plays around with other forms of sym-

bolism in the story as well as offering flagrant hints as to Arnold’s true identity.  First, the car:  It

is referred to as a jalopy (52) painted gold.  “Jalopy” is defined as “Old and dilapidated,” (962)

and dilapidated is defined as “Having fallen into a state of disrepair,” (522). Satan is old, and

theologians could attest that, since his departure from Heaven, he has fallen into a state of disre-

pair as he was once the most beautiful of all angels. The gold color of the car represents his abili-

ty to maintain some semblance of beauty, but it can also be viewed as his ability to manipulate

and attract those who desire worldly possessions, and has gold not been the most precious, most

sought-after “worldly possession” throughout history?

On the car, in black, tar-like letters, is Arnold’s name. The color black has always been

representative of evil, and the fact that it is “tar-like” may represent decay or rot.  The numbers,

33, 19, and 17, can be looked at in two ways. First, 33 (3+3=6), then 19, 17 (19+17=36, square

root of being 6, thus 6x6), so what we are left with is 666, the number of the beast. Also, if one

were to count backwards from the last book of the Old Testament, Judges would be the 33^rd book

of the Bible (counting backwards is symbolic of Satan being the opposite of God), and Judges

19:17 reads, “And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the

city: and the old man said, Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?” (396). This is a direct

link to the title of the story.

“Man the Flying Saucers” was an adage employed by persons of the period to mean

things are not what they seem, or one should beware of that which they saw.

     Perhaps the most compelling words on the car are, “Done by a crazy woman,” in reference to

the smashed left rear fender.  In the aftermath of the beguiling of Eve, when God has confronted

both she and Adam and it has been revealed that Lucifer was the entity responsible, God said,

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall

bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15, [12]). We can draw a parallel here

between the rear fender of the vehicle—front to back = top to bottom = head to heel—and the

heel; one is smashed, the other bruised, but both done by a “crazy” woman. Commentary into

this passage states, “This verse contains the first implicit promise of God’s plan of redemption

for the world.  It predicts the ultimate victory for humankind and God over Satan and evil by

prophesying of a spiritual conflict between the “seed” of the woman (i.e., the Lord Jesus Christ)

and the “seed” of the serpent (i.e., Satan and his followers). God promised here that Christ would

be born of a woman (Isaiah 7:14 confirms this with, “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you

a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. [1005])

and would be “bruised” through His crucifixion. Yet, He would rise from the dead to completely

destroy (i.e., “bruise”) Satan, sin, and death for the sake of the salvation of the human race.”

A lot of speculation has been given to Ellie Oscar’s part in the story, but I believe it to be

a metaphor for those who follow along without conscience, unquestioningly, along for the ride

regardless of the consequence. He will sit in the back, Arnold says time and again, like that voice

in the back of one’s head he or she will not heed. Connie even makes the comment, “He’s kinda

strange” (57), like a voice of reason one has all but forgotten.

The prevalence of and reference to flies proliferate the story; flies have always bespoken

pestilence, evil, and death.

More hints to Arnold’s true identity: Is the X, his sign, a corrupted cross, much like the

Nazis employed? Was his off-balance stature the result of his loose-fitting boots, indeed hiding

cloven-hoofed feet?  His glittering eyes, the sunglasses (used to hide the horns on his head?) are

all sure tell-tale signs, but in the end I think what we are left with is simply this: Ms. Oates did

employ the use of Satan, but simply as a metaphor. Mankind is inherently evil, and I believe Sa-

tan was used to symbolize the evil in (Charles Schmid’s, thus) Arnold Friend’s heart, and not just

Arnold’s but Connie’s as well.

1,235 words

References Cited

Legacies (51-61) 4^th ed. Schmidt, Crockett, Bogarad. 2009. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Bos-

ton, MASS.

The Full Life Study Bible (KJV; 12, 396, 1005) Stamps, Adams.  1992.  Zondervan Publishing

House. Grand Rapids, Michigan

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 3^rd ed.  Houghton Mifflin Co. 

1992. 

Let Me Be Your Diary

Let me be your diary

Your journal, if you will

A sheet of paper blank, unmarred

That you would hope to fill

Tell me of your every thought

Your heartaches, your desires

All the things that no one knows

Those things not spoken prior

Tell me how your day was

Whether good or bad

The what and who and how and why

The happy and the sad

Tell me how your night goes

As you start to wind on down

Of the dreams that visit every night

Of the curious little sounds

That seem to take you far away

To a land of long ago

Where memories of joy and pain

Both, from your heart, flow

Hopes and dreams, ideas, beliefs

I want to know them all

Build them on this paper

And not some mental wall

In case you haven’t guessed by now

I’ll tell you that it’s true

I want to know all of these things

Because I want to know all about you

For how else can I share your dreams

Stand there at your side

If it is not in me, your destiny

Whom you choose to confide?

Great Expectations

When it comes to finding the "perfect woman," are my expectations too high? Is it too much to ask that she shares my conservative values, love of literature, warped sense of humor, and allows logic--real analytical rationale--to dictate her every thought and action? I guess what I am in search of is a Lilith Crane type, yet the line from "Going to California"--"Looking for a woman who has never been born"--seems more appropriate. Physical beauty is a mere afterthought when compared to the aforementioned traits as I prize intellectual stimulation above all else. So, where exactly is she?