I have this twitch in my nose and it's a bit annoying. It twitches, occasionally. For no reason at all. Just like that. And then it's gone. It's a bit annoying, this twitch in my nose.

Pokemon, I'm no dummy pawn,
Pocket the money, carry on.
50,000 dollars! Most rare card.
I'll get it. Cause I'm so smart.
I'm not like Natsu, my gray:
Is never shaped like shade.
When my box goes *BOOM*
People wonder what hit them,
Like autotune: when you get run over,
But not this friend, this isn't like:
Ronda Rousey beating you into submission,
Or World War, or fanaticism, or religion.
Or getting shit on by a shitty little pigeon!!
This isn't a villainous minion, it's not even with them,
This little pick of wisdom seems for many to stay hidden till you wizen,
And then what good does it do you? Screw you, optimism.

On the train to work today, I shook hands with a hobo. He came walking along the aisle, and looked at my goatee-like beard, and pointed towards his own goatee-lacking chin, said something in a strange language and chuckled a bit, and then he held out his hand.

So, I shook it.

I didn't realize until after, that this friendly gesture was cue for give me some money, and he looked a bit disheartened when he held up his can for coins and I shook my head.

If there ever was a beggar I might have given some money to, it might have been him. He seemed like a fun guy, though out of principle I never give anything to anyone ...unless I know them, or what they'll do with that money.

It's like kidnappings and ransom - if someone pays the ransom then everyone wants to kidnap someone and get something. if someone gives a beggar money there'll be beggars everywhere - even those who don't need to beg.

It didn't use to be like that. Beggars didn't use to beg unless they had to; Swedish beggars have always been few and far between, because we have social care over here. If you really need help, you go there, even if they won't give you more than a bare minimum to let you get by, and only when you have no other place to go, and no savings at all. If you're addicted to drugs or alcohol however, you won't get your fix there, so you resort to begging, and people will look down on you because they know you're a junkie, though there are always a few good-willed people who'll believe you can change and offer you a few kronor in hopeful goodwill.

Unfortunately, globalization happened, and now the country is packed with people of different cultures, without the same ethics, social safety net, or standards that make our rags seem like riches - but does getting our rags make them rich? Usually the beggars are merely the foot folk, and the ankles wear them down without regard.

The trains are swarming with them, since there are always those few naive people who do give them money, maybe in the hope that they are somehow better than our own beggars. And maybe they are, but thanks to them, beggars are becoming a superfluous breed, hated on by most and many - a constant irritant on the short commuter trips to and from work. I rarely ever see them get anything, but they must be getting something there. Why else would they roam the trains, when they rarely roam elsewhere?

It's ironic that the people with the most money are the people furthest away from their chosen forms of transportation. If only these beggars could fill the seats of 3/4's empty executive cars rolling along the higher ways wherever it is they roll. Stop bothering the lower-wage working class on their way to work of their own with your pleas for currency-based crumbs. We eat those crumbs too.

Every trip to work there's at least one or two that pass by saying please or please help (at least this guy didn't whine). Then occasionally there's a Swedish hobo who talks loudly about how the shelters no longer have room for Swedes with all these Romanian beggars, or how they've reduced the number of shelters for girls, so they really have nowhere to go, and how unfair it is and how they don't feel safe anywhere.

If they didn't speak so much and sound so mean about it, I'm sure they'd be a bit more compelling in their begging efforts - because we relate more to those who speak our own language, but the Swedish hobos seem pissed. People of other nationalities have taken over the territory completely. It's organized beggary. There's a beggar outside every single shop. Everywhere. Even outside of the big cities. They're on the trains too. And that's it. That's where they are.

I had a buddy who gave a beggar a krona once, but he's wised up since then. Give them a finger and they'll take your hand. Give them your hand and they'll want more than a shake: they'll want your money.

I'm sure there are a lot of poor people out there, but these aren't the ones getting the money they beg for, these are the puppets that pass it on, like how we put our savings in the banks, and the banks use that money to make more money. Just look at the Panama Papers.

Maybe you could learn a thing or two from the banks, you ranks of beggars, who have nothing better to do but walk through and bug us all with your begging call. Not that it's your fault, but I beg: don't stall. Make something for yourselves; don't let everyone else take your riches. For those itches you can't scratch, we've all got your back*.

* But you'd better get your own wallet.

Here's a word I've been confused about a long time. I use both - depending on the situation, and when I use the latter spellcheck always tells me I'm wrong. Sometimes I let it fix things for me, and sometimes I don't, because the way spellcheck claims is right just doesn't feel right to write.

I finally decided to once and for all find out who's right and who's not, and it turns out... both are correct, though according to many an authority and language blog: among is the preferred version, since amongst sounds old-fashioned and out-of-tune. Oddly enough, amongst is actually the newer word of the two, and though not as common as among, it's still commonly used despite all the authoritative critique. In UK English it's a tad bit more accepted than in the US, too.

So there you have it! There's some wisdom amongst these pages of teh Interweb after all! I guess I'll keep shillyshallying between the two whenever there's opportunity to.

Among err, a monger of grammatical justice stirs.

Well that wasn't a story with a happy ending! I was really expecting something more inspiring... but I guess they did get away with 11 million, huh. Was it worth it? In the interview ending his face seems to say it was, but then again maybe he's just happy to be free. You can't buy freedom. But lets go back to where it all began...

The story's about two buddies. Chris (played by Liam Hemsworth) is smart. He wants to be a cop and do good, and earn money for his family, but his buddy Eddie (Michael Angarano) isn't as aspiring, and because of this buddy Chris doesn't get the job. He becomes the next best thing: a security guard, and is soon guarding a lock-up.

The money's ridiculously badly guarded, and what starts as a ventful chat with his buddy soon turns into a vengeful plan to rob the place, and get their works worth. But did I mention his buddy is pretty stupid? I do feel sorry for the main character, having a buddy like that buddy.

It doesn't go the way any of them would've wanted, and not for the viewer either. That being said, it was a well-filmed mess. Not much action, but the little there is feels polished, authentic, and drastic. Each shot counts. Oh, and The Rock plays a cop.

I read a good review for this movie somewhere, but though it didn't really rise as high in my book as in the book of whomever it was writing that review, it wasn't bad. It's a slice of life action movie based on a true story. Apparently, things like this really do happen, and of course that fact makes it all the more compelling. Good watch.

 rated 3/5: not bad

Close Range feels like a western in modern time. The atmosphere is a bit similar to El Gringo (2012), with a slightly more angry and upper-handed Scott Adkins, and a smaller cast.

After the introduction, most of it takes place on a ranch, surrounded by open plains and desert brush. That first ronin reference was a bit confusing, but the first shots clear the air, and you quickly get into the mood.

It's gritty, and dusty, with both gunfire and fighting choreography heavy and authentic. It's got something a lot of modern movies lack too: time, and tension. It boasts not a lot of actors, and not a large variation of sceneries or people, but they make the small things count, and give the people personality and human traits, like fear. They don't just barge in through doors, guns blazing, making themselves easy targets. They take it one step at a time, slowly, silently, waiting for something to stir behind their wall of waiting.

It's good action. You can really feel the impact of each bullet, the flares of gunfire, and clouds of smoke and debris. Everybody knows how to shoot, even if (and particularly because?) they all keep missing each other. The story's a tale of kidnapping, and cartels, and a keychain, and family - but it'll all make easy sense when you see it.

If you like other Scott Adkins movies, you'll like this. Great watch.

 rated 4/5: fo shizzle