Well, here we are at the end of 2009, and I feel obligated to give you the 3 readers of this blog my traditional year-end review, so here goes!
Best Movie of the Year:
Winner: AVATAR. Cliched plot aside, I've never been so transfixed by any movie, and I have to say that this is one movie that lived up to the hype.
Runner up: TRANSFORMERS: RISE OF THE FALLEN. I don't care what the critics thought. I liked it!
Worst Movie of the Year:
Winner (sort of): 2012. I've never walked out of the theater after a disaster movie laughing my ass off. Until this movie.
Runner up: Knowing. If there was ever a better example of the Oscar curse than Nicholas Cage, I'm having a hard time thinking of it.
Most Disappointing Movie of the Year:
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. This movie was like watching a live action version of Team America: World Police. Seriously. As if the French needed another reason to hate us...
Runner up: Tie: Star Trek. I'm not sure why J.J. Abrans thought he needed to take the entire Gene Roddenberry ST universe out to the courtyard, tie it to a post, and shoot it, but that's what he did. And that is not a good thing...
Tie: Watchmen. After reading the full graphic novel, I was impressed by how faithful the filmmakers were able to follow it--right up until the end...
Movie I wish I'd seen:
Up. Why can't I get over my fear of seeing animated movies in the theater?!
Movie I'm glad I didn't see:
Inglorious Basterds. Why is it that critics think that everything Quentin Tarantino touches turns to gold? Trust me when I say that they are WRONG!
Best Sports moment of 2009:
OSU 21. UM 10. Nuff said
Runner up:
OSU 24, PSU 7
Worst Sports moment of 2009:
Texas 24, OSU 21
Runner up:
Stanley Cup game 7: Pittsburgh 2, Detroit 1
Well, that's all I've got for now. Happy New Year, everyone!
This blog is one of millions out there, hence the title. I update it frequently but not regularly. I have strong opinions, and they tend to be expressed with, shall we say, some "colorful language". If you are easily offended, leave. Now. Otherwise, keep reading, and post a comment if you wish.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Things you Miss
When you don't have cable TV (Yes, I'm the one!)
Didya catch that? "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during Bush's term".
Um, Okay.
Well, I suppose you could say she is right in one way: We did NOT have A terrorist attack on our country--we had THE terrorist attack.
Or, perhaps you could spin it another way: We didn't have one during his SECOND term...
Ah, who am I kidding?! She's a MORON!
Didya catch that? "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during Bush's term".
Um, Okay.
Well, I suppose you could say she is right in one way: We did NOT have A terrorist attack on our country--we had THE terrorist attack.
Or, perhaps you could spin it another way: We didn't have one during his SECOND term...
Ah, who am I kidding?! She's a MORON!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Ted Nugent, You. Are. An. Idiot.
Rocker Ted Nugent recently made this statement to Royal Flush magazine:
"I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist. (Former Chinese leader) Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up."
Me too.
I am waiting for the same type of uproar that happened after Natalie Maines comment in a concert in England, wherein she said she was ashamed that George Bush was from Texas (paraphrasing).
Seriously. People destroyed Dixie Chicks CD's. DJ's were suspended for playing the Dixie Chicks. The three women in the band received death threats.
So will the same thing happen to Nugent? Judging by the cheers heard at his concerts--especially after he exhorts President Obama and Hilary Clinton to "suck on his machine gun (again, paraphrasing)--I have serious doubts.
So I will simply say this: Ted Nugent, you are a moron. I don't own any of your albums, and I never will. And in the future, if I hear one of your songs on the radio, I'm switching to another station.
Because that is my choice. I am an American, not a communist.
"I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist. (Former Chinese leader) Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up."
Me too.
I am waiting for the same type of uproar that happened after Natalie Maines comment in a concert in England, wherein she said she was ashamed that George Bush was from Texas (paraphrasing).
Seriously. People destroyed Dixie Chicks CD's. DJ's were suspended for playing the Dixie Chicks. The three women in the band received death threats.
So will the same thing happen to Nugent? Judging by the cheers heard at his concerts--especially after he exhorts President Obama and Hilary Clinton to "suck on his machine gun (again, paraphrasing)--I have serious doubts.
So I will simply say this: Ted Nugent, you are a moron. I don't own any of your albums, and I never will. And in the future, if I hear one of your songs on the radio, I'm switching to another station.
Because that is my choice. I am an American, not a communist.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Avatar
It's a movie.
It's a good movie.
It's a GREAT movie.
I highly recommend this movie to you the 3 readers of this blog. And see the "Real 3D" version if you can. I won't tell you to go see it--now! I will simply say that I don't think you'll be disappointed if you do.
I will admit, I was skeptical. I have grown increasingly nearsighted as I grow older. As a result, I must wear glasses if I want to see anything clearly that is farther away than 15 feet. This means that when I go to see a movie in a theater, I either have to sit in the front row (a guaranteed recipe for a head and neck ache) or wear my glasses to see the movie clearly. This of course, brings me in a roundabout way to my point: I had to wear the Real 3D glasses over my own glasses if I wanted to get the full effect. This was also a guaranteed recipe for a skull-splitting headache.
But it sooo didn't matter.
For nearly 3 hours today, I sat in a movie theater and was transported into another world.
This was the first movie I've seen in a theater using the Real 3D technology, and I think this was also the first movie that REALLY made use of the technology. And I have to say that if the brainiacs working this technology ever figure a way to make it so the audience doesn't have to wear the glasses to experience the effect, there will never be another major motion picture made without it.
Of course, after I got over my awe over the movie technology (it took about 2 hours after I got home), I began to dissect this movie with what I hoped was an objective eye. It has a rather standard plot, as I know has been pointed out by various critics: The Evil Humans invade a lush paradise populated by an initially peaceful indigenous species. After their initial efforts are repulsed when said species fights back, they try a different approach: send in infiltrators to study the culture and determine its weaknesses. Of course, said infiltrators naturally come to sympathize with the indigenous species' cause, and over the course of such become its greatest champions and fiercest defenders.
The fact that the plot is cliched, I believe, does not detract from it. It's a well-known fact that any number of tragedies of human history are the result of one race of humans wiping out another. And if it takes a $200 million+ movie with some of the most spectacular special effects seen in a loooong time to drive this point home, then I have no problem with it.
In the meantime, this movie was the most entertaining movie I've seen in a long time, and I may do something that I haven't done in over 2 decades: I may go see it in a theater again. It was that good. And well worth the 3 minutes I sat in the theater afterwords massaging my temples to try to ease the headache caused by the glasses.
So again I will say to you who read this: If you see it, I don't think you'll be disappointed.
You can't say that about many movies these days.
It's a good movie.
It's a GREAT movie.
I highly recommend this movie to you the 3 readers of this blog. And see the "Real 3D" version if you can. I won't tell you to go see it--now! I will simply say that I don't think you'll be disappointed if you do.
I will admit, I was skeptical. I have grown increasingly nearsighted as I grow older. As a result, I must wear glasses if I want to see anything clearly that is farther away than 15 feet. This means that when I go to see a movie in a theater, I either have to sit in the front row (a guaranteed recipe for a head and neck ache) or wear my glasses to see the movie clearly. This of course, brings me in a roundabout way to my point: I had to wear the Real 3D glasses over my own glasses if I wanted to get the full effect. This was also a guaranteed recipe for a skull-splitting headache.
But it sooo didn't matter.
For nearly 3 hours today, I sat in a movie theater and was transported into another world.
This was the first movie I've seen in a theater using the Real 3D technology, and I think this was also the first movie that REALLY made use of the technology. And I have to say that if the brainiacs working this technology ever figure a way to make it so the audience doesn't have to wear the glasses to experience the effect, there will never be another major motion picture made without it.
Of course, after I got over my awe over the movie technology (it took about 2 hours after I got home), I began to dissect this movie with what I hoped was an objective eye. It has a rather standard plot, as I know has been pointed out by various critics: The Evil Humans invade a lush paradise populated by an initially peaceful indigenous species. After their initial efforts are repulsed when said species fights back, they try a different approach: send in infiltrators to study the culture and determine its weaknesses. Of course, said infiltrators naturally come to sympathize with the indigenous species' cause, and over the course of such become its greatest champions and fiercest defenders.
The fact that the plot is cliched, I believe, does not detract from it. It's a well-known fact that any number of tragedies of human history are the result of one race of humans wiping out another. And if it takes a $200 million+ movie with some of the most spectacular special effects seen in a loooong time to drive this point home, then I have no problem with it.
In the meantime, this movie was the most entertaining movie I've seen in a long time, and I may do something that I haven't done in over 2 decades: I may go see it in a theater again. It was that good. And well worth the 3 minutes I sat in the theater afterwords massaging my temples to try to ease the headache caused by the glasses.
So again I will say to you who read this: If you see it, I don't think you'll be disappointed.
You can't say that about many movies these days.
Friday, December 18, 2009
It's the End of the World as we Know it.
Can someone please explain to me humanity's fascination with the end of the world?
Both the Old and New Testament of the Bible have vividly described apocalyptic events. The end of the world exists in the History of the Greek and Roman Gods and Norse Gods. The Qur'an predicts the end of the world.
Uncounted fiction writers have predicted the end of the world, caused by everything from tiny viruses to thermonuclear war to Alien conquest. As have numerous Hollyweird movies. Roland Emmerich has gotten extremely rich by destroying the world no less than three times by my count. I think to top his latest opus he may actually have to literally destroy the planet. Seriously. The man decided that a limo driver/failed author would end up being the savior of one quarter of all surviving humans on the planet. It's hard to imagine where you go from there.
So why the fascination with the end? Why are we as a species so obsessed with how things will end for us?
I have my own theory.
It is this: The poem The Hollow Men by T.S. Eliot ends with the four line stanza:
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
My opinion is that it expresses the idea that our world will not end with some biblical apocalypse, but will simply fade away. We will all die because we have either fallen victim to some virus that will destroy us all gradually, or because we have simply exhausted the resources our planet has to offer us, before we can find some way to replace them.
And while some may survive this end, it's not the kind of survival that anyone will enjoy (Which has ALSO been the subject of many movies and video games. Which are also often bestsellers--but that is another story).
So I believe we enjoy watching movies and reading books that detail humanity's spectacular end simply because we dislike considering Eliot's alternative.
If you have any doubts about this theory, then please consider the box office difference between 2012 and The Road.
Yeah.
Both the Old and New Testament of the Bible have vividly described apocalyptic events. The end of the world exists in the History of the Greek and Roman Gods and Norse Gods. The Qur'an predicts the end of the world.
Uncounted fiction writers have predicted the end of the world, caused by everything from tiny viruses to thermonuclear war to Alien conquest. As have numerous Hollyweird movies. Roland Emmerich has gotten extremely rich by destroying the world no less than three times by my count. I think to top his latest opus he may actually have to literally destroy the planet. Seriously. The man decided that a limo driver/failed author would end up being the savior of one quarter of all surviving humans on the planet. It's hard to imagine where you go from there.
So why the fascination with the end? Why are we as a species so obsessed with how things will end for us?
I have my own theory.
It is this: The poem The Hollow Men by T.S. Eliot ends with the four line stanza:
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
My opinion is that it expresses the idea that our world will not end with some biblical apocalypse, but will simply fade away. We will all die because we have either fallen victim to some virus that will destroy us all gradually, or because we have simply exhausted the resources our planet has to offer us, before we can find some way to replace them.
And while some may survive this end, it's not the kind of survival that anyone will enjoy (Which has ALSO been the subject of many movies and video games. Which are also often bestsellers--but that is another story).
So I believe we enjoy watching movies and reading books that detail humanity's spectacular end simply because we dislike considering Eliot's alternative.
If you have any doubts about this theory, then please consider the box office difference between 2012 and The Road.
Yeah.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
My Problem with Wikipedia
I'm sure all 3 readers of this blog are familiar with the on-line encyclopedia site known as Wikipedia. In case you aren't, the site is a totally free, user-created on-line encyclopedia with fourteen million plus entirely user-created articles in ten different languages, on every subject from Aardvark to zygote and all points in between.
It is an incredible achievement. The bulk of the articles are thoroughly researched, cross-indexed, footnoted, and well-written with few if any grammatical or spelling errors. There are no ads on the site (other than what might appear as a by-product of certain article topics), not only a rarity in this day and age of internet commerce, but almost unheard of. The site operates entirely off revenue donated by its on-line users. It's truly a remarkable feat.
But I do have one problem with it: Links like this one (WARNING: Link leads to female nudity!!!!)
Now, I realize the old adage "A picture is worth a thousand words" has never been more appropriate when trying to describe an article of clothing. And I am a healthy, heterosexual human male, so I enjoy looking at pictures of young, gorgeous, topless women (I'd be VERY surprised if that surprised anyone). That's not my problem.
My problem is, anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, can access this page. And hundreds, if not thousands, of other pages that are even more explicit. There is no filtering of the pages, no "adult" content warnings, no ANYTHING.
And believe me when I say that the page I linked to above is far, far, FAR from being the most explicit page available. If you doubt me, then go to Wikipedia and search for the most sexually explicit thing you can think of. Odds are pretty good that you'll be able to find it.
I'm not disparaging Wikipedia at all. Far from it. I sing its praises regularly, to anyone who will listen. I'm just saying that maybe a few adult content warnings and/or a little bit of control might be in order.
It is an incredible achievement. The bulk of the articles are thoroughly researched, cross-indexed, footnoted, and well-written with few if any grammatical or spelling errors. There are no ads on the site (other than what might appear as a by-product of certain article topics), not only a rarity in this day and age of internet commerce, but almost unheard of. The site operates entirely off revenue donated by its on-line users. It's truly a remarkable feat.
But I do have one problem with it: Links like this one (WARNING: Link leads to female nudity!!!!)
Now, I realize the old adage "A picture is worth a thousand words" has never been more appropriate when trying to describe an article of clothing. And I am a healthy, heterosexual human male, so I enjoy looking at pictures of young, gorgeous, topless women (I'd be VERY surprised if that surprised anyone). That's not my problem.
My problem is, anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, can access this page. And hundreds, if not thousands, of other pages that are even more explicit. There is no filtering of the pages, no "adult" content warnings, no ANYTHING.
And believe me when I say that the page I linked to above is far, far, FAR from being the most explicit page available. If you doubt me, then go to Wikipedia and search for the most sexually explicit thing you can think of. Odds are pretty good that you'll be able to find it.
I'm not disparaging Wikipedia at all. Far from it. I sing its praises regularly, to anyone who will listen. I'm just saying that maybe a few adult content warnings and/or a little bit of control might be in order.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Harmonium
What is a Harmonium?
For those who are unaware, the Harmonium was once referred to as the "Poor man's Pipe Organ". It was a complicated musical instrument capable, on a lesser scale, of replicating the sounds created by a full pipe organ, without the pipes. The larger versions could even take the place of organs in churches. The instrument was hand and/or foot-powered, and ranged from a simple handheld keyboard instrument to a full upright piano-sized instrument.
It is unknown what was the inspiration for the creation of this instrument. It served no useful purpose, other than creating a cheap replacement for pipe organs in churches that could not afford such instruments. And, with the development of electronic organs, it became obsolete and is no longer used.
What could inspire someone to created such a thing? Something that would have limited use at best, and something that could be easily replaced by soemthing much smaller and more efficient?
Throughout history, invention has been at best an inefficient process, with highly inefficient creations preceding the more effective final (assumed) versions (think of the steam engine vs. the internal combustion engine). Rather than making the best of ourselves, invention is plagued with what are assumed to be numerous mistakes that are corrected before the final result.
But the mistakes can produce some pretty spectacular results...
For those who are unaware, the Harmonium was once referred to as the "Poor man's Pipe Organ". It was a complicated musical instrument capable, on a lesser scale, of replicating the sounds created by a full pipe organ, without the pipes. The larger versions could even take the place of organs in churches. The instrument was hand and/or foot-powered, and ranged from a simple handheld keyboard instrument to a full upright piano-sized instrument.
It is unknown what was the inspiration for the creation of this instrument. It served no useful purpose, other than creating a cheap replacement for pipe organs in churches that could not afford such instruments. And, with the development of electronic organs, it became obsolete and is no longer used.
What could inspire someone to created such a thing? Something that would have limited use at best, and something that could be easily replaced by soemthing much smaller and more efficient?
Throughout history, invention has been at best an inefficient process, with highly inefficient creations preceding the more effective final (assumed) versions (think of the steam engine vs. the internal combustion engine). Rather than making the best of ourselves, invention is plagued with what are assumed to be numerous mistakes that are corrected before the final result.
But the mistakes can produce some pretty spectacular results...
Friday, November 27, 2009
Commercial Creeps me Out.
I wonder if any of you the 3 readers of this blog have seen the latest Michelin commercial...
Well, if you haven't, let me describe it, if I can: It starts with a dark country road. It is a dark, cloudy, rainy night. On this road are dozens of cute, fluffy, animated bunnies, squirrels, and various other cute critters.
All of them in varied ROADKILL POSES!!
Seriously. These animals have flattened stomachs, legs, and various other body parts, all with tire treads across them. The only thing missing is the blood (Maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas...)
Believe me, it's worse than this makes it sound.
Then, of course, out comes the Michelin Man to save the day, by throwing Michelin tires at a car as it is about to run down yet another defenseless animal.
OK first of all, whoever was the "creative" mind behind this creepy commercial, I desperately implore you to seek professional help NOW!
Second, to the Michelin exec that approved this ad: I really don't see a big Christmas bonus in your future.
Memo to Michelin: The best way to sell a lot of tires is NOT to feature ROADKILL in your commercials!
Well, if you haven't, let me describe it, if I can: It starts with a dark country road. It is a dark, cloudy, rainy night. On this road are dozens of cute, fluffy, animated bunnies, squirrels, and various other cute critters.
All of them in varied ROADKILL POSES!!
Seriously. These animals have flattened stomachs, legs, and various other body parts, all with tire treads across them. The only thing missing is the blood (Maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas...)
Believe me, it's worse than this makes it sound.
Then, of course, out comes the Michelin Man to save the day, by throwing Michelin tires at a car as it is about to run down yet another defenseless animal.
OK first of all, whoever was the "creative" mind behind this creepy commercial, I desperately implore you to seek professional help NOW!
Second, to the Michelin exec that approved this ad: I really don't see a big Christmas bonus in your future.
Memo to Michelin: The best way to sell a lot of tires is NOT to feature ROADKILL in your commercials!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Roland Emmerich Hates us All
By my count, Roland Emmerich has now destroyed the world, or at least a major portion of it, no less than 3 times now. He's done it with aliens, Global warming, and now, in his latest pile of crap, 2012, a complete polar shift.
As usual, the science is suspect, the writing is terrible, the effects are eye-popping, the ending is predictable, and the cliches are flying right, left, and center.
You know, it's usually not a good sign when you leave the theater after a disaster movie laughing so hard you nearly piss yourself, but I simply couldn't help myself. This was, hands down, probably the silliest movie so far this year. And that's saying something. After all, this is the year of G.I. Joe and the new Star Trek movie.
Just so you don't waste your money, let me spoil a few things for you that you might think would make this movie worth seeing.
* John Cusack does not die.
* You don't get to see Amanda Peet naked (for a change).
* Arnold Schwarzenegger does not play himself
* Woody Harrelson dies spectacularly--er, wait, that's a good one. Strike that.
It's a typical Emmerich movie in other words: $200 million spent on effects and about a buck-fifty on the script. Other than some truly spectacular effects which will surely win the Oscar, this movie has nothing else to recommend it. Take my advice and save your money. They really aren't worth it.
Want an example? OK Sparky, you asked for it. Here's my prime example of how dumb this movie was: Over the course of this movie, the magnetic poles shift over 200 degrees of latitude, California falls into the ocean, Ultra-volcanoes erupt and cover the surface of the planet with ash clouds, 100 story skyscrapers topple, and 30000 foot high tsunamis surge over the top of mountains in the Himalayas. And yet, through all this, people's cellphones still work just fine. Not a single structure still stands on 5 of the 7 major continents, and yet the cell towers are still there.
Yeah. That's what I thought.
As usual, the science is suspect, the writing is terrible, the effects are eye-popping, the ending is predictable, and the cliches are flying right, left, and center.
You know, it's usually not a good sign when you leave the theater after a disaster movie laughing so hard you nearly piss yourself, but I simply couldn't help myself. This was, hands down, probably the silliest movie so far this year. And that's saying something. After all, this is the year of G.I. Joe and the new Star Trek movie.
Just so you don't waste your money, let me spoil a few things for you that you might think would make this movie worth seeing.
* John Cusack does not die.
* You don't get to see Amanda Peet naked (for a change).
* Arnold Schwarzenegger does not play himself
* Woody Harrelson dies spectacularly--er, wait, that's a good one. Strike that.
It's a typical Emmerich movie in other words: $200 million spent on effects and about a buck-fifty on the script. Other than some truly spectacular effects which will surely win the Oscar, this movie has nothing else to recommend it. Take my advice and save your money. They really aren't worth it.
Want an example? OK Sparky, you asked for it. Here's my prime example of how dumb this movie was: Over the course of this movie, the magnetic poles shift over 200 degrees of latitude, California falls into the ocean, Ultra-volcanoes erupt and cover the surface of the planet with ash clouds, 100 story skyscrapers topple, and 30000 foot high tsunamis surge over the top of mountains in the Himalayas. And yet, through all this, people's cellphones still work just fine. Not a single structure still stands on 5 of the 7 major continents, and yet the cell towers are still there.
Yeah. That's what I thought.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
I am Older Than Sesame Street
Sesame Street is 40 years old today.
I am 42 years old.
I'm older than Sesame Street.
Fuck,I'm old.
Apologies for the coarse language. It's just that HOW THE HELL DID I GET SO OLD?!!!
Anyway, I grew up watching Sesame Street. I loved the characters. I loved the Cookie Monster. I loved Grover. I loved The Count.
Most importantly, I loved Oscar the Grouch. He fit with my personality so well. I am, you may have noticed, grumpy, cranky, and cynical. And, despite what others have told me, I come by this naturally. Part of it comes from my natural disposition, and part of it comes from always having been younger than my classmates when I grew up.
You see, when I started school, You didn't have to be 5 before you started, as long as you turned 5 within the school year. When we moved to a state that didn't allow this, I was allowed to stay at my current level of education. So I was younger than almost all of my classmates.
As a result, I started out with a big chip on my shoulder. Add to this buck teeth and being short by nature, and I became a world-class grouch. So imagine my joy when I could tune in every day and see a character who was, without fail, cranky, grumpy, and almost impossible to cheer up. Just like me.
And it has brought joy to my grumpy heart that over the years, with all the changes to Sesame Street, Oscar has remained consistent. He wakes up cranky. He lives in a garbage can and will never move. He is reluctant to join in with the other characters in their songs. And while he may be a grump, he secretly has a heart of gold and will always be loyal to his friends.
So here's to you, Oscar! May you always keep Sesame Street honest.
(And oh, by the way, if you should ever decide to leave your beloved garbage can for a Recycling bin, I will hunt you down and cut out your worthless fucking felt heart. Consider yourself warned!)
(Again, sorry about the language, but it does happen...)
I am 42 years old.
I'm older than Sesame Street.
Fuck,I'm old.
Apologies for the coarse language. It's just that HOW THE HELL DID I GET SO OLD?!!!
Anyway, I grew up watching Sesame Street. I loved the characters. I loved the Cookie Monster. I loved Grover. I loved The Count.
Most importantly, I loved Oscar the Grouch. He fit with my personality so well. I am, you may have noticed, grumpy, cranky, and cynical. And, despite what others have told me, I come by this naturally. Part of it comes from my natural disposition, and part of it comes from always having been younger than my classmates when I grew up.
You see, when I started school, You didn't have to be 5 before you started, as long as you turned 5 within the school year. When we moved to a state that didn't allow this, I was allowed to stay at my current level of education. So I was younger than almost all of my classmates.
As a result, I started out with a big chip on my shoulder. Add to this buck teeth and being short by nature, and I became a world-class grouch. So imagine my joy when I could tune in every day and see a character who was, without fail, cranky, grumpy, and almost impossible to cheer up. Just like me.
And it has brought joy to my grumpy heart that over the years, with all the changes to Sesame Street, Oscar has remained consistent. He wakes up cranky. He lives in a garbage can and will never move. He is reluctant to join in with the other characters in their songs. And while he may be a grump, he secretly has a heart of gold and will always be loyal to his friends.
So here's to you, Oscar! May you always keep Sesame Street honest.
(And oh, by the way, if you should ever decide to leave your beloved garbage can for a Recycling bin, I will hunt you down and cut out your worthless fucking felt heart. Consider yourself warned!)
(Again, sorry about the language, but it does happen...)
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Learning all the Wrong Lessons
As expected, the Republicans and their neo-con talking heads are currently crowing over their electoral victories in New Jersey and Virginia last Thursday. They claim the elections were a repudiation of the Obama administrations policies and that this is the beginning of the end of the administration.
They are wrong.
In the first place, Virginia is a typically red state that swung blue last election mostly due to fatigue over Republican policies. And the New Jersey election was so close it can hardly be called a sweeping victory.
No, the race that they SHOULD be paying attention to is the New York 23rd Congressional district. This is a district that has voted Republican since there WAS a Republican party. And yet it was won by a Democrat.
Why? Because the Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin wing of the Republican Party took over the election. And swung it to the Democrats with their extremist views. They embraced a 3rd party conservative over the moderate Republican candidate who had a strong chance of winning. And they handed the election to the Democrats as a result.
This is the exact same sort of infighting that is the main reason only 25% of the electorate identifies itself as Republicans. The Republican party is being taken over by the extreme conservatives, and as a result they are driving people away.
And I couldn't be happier. I can't think of a better way to ensure Republicans never win another election.
Advice to Republicans: Stop listening to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. They're steering you in a direction that you REALLY don't want to go.
They are wrong.
In the first place, Virginia is a typically red state that swung blue last election mostly due to fatigue over Republican policies. And the New Jersey election was so close it can hardly be called a sweeping victory.
No, the race that they SHOULD be paying attention to is the New York 23rd Congressional district. This is a district that has voted Republican since there WAS a Republican party. And yet it was won by a Democrat.
Why? Because the Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin wing of the Republican Party took over the election. And swung it to the Democrats with their extremist views. They embraced a 3rd party conservative over the moderate Republican candidate who had a strong chance of winning. And they handed the election to the Democrats as a result.
This is the exact same sort of infighting that is the main reason only 25% of the electorate identifies itself as Republicans. The Republican party is being taken over by the extreme conservatives, and as a result they are driving people away.
And I couldn't be happier. I can't think of a better way to ensure Republicans never win another election.
Advice to Republicans: Stop listening to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. They're steering you in a direction that you REALLY don't want to go.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Why I will Never be a Catholic
I'm a single Protestant male living in Toledo. I'm surrounded in many places by Catholics, in my workplace, my social circle, and my regular daily life.
I've been asked why I'm not a Catholic. It's for many reasons, but chief among them is their treatment of women.
I have never been able to understand why any major organized religion would ever suppress the contributions women are able to make. Throughout history, no organization or civilization that ever suppressed the contributions that could be made by either gender has ever prospered.
But that's only one of my complaints. Another is the prohibition against marriage by the members of the clergy. In nearly every other major organized religion, the members of the clergy are not only allowed but encouraged to marry and reproduce. They see it as one of the most sure ways to ensure their religions continue to survive and thrive. It also prevents those same clergy members from falling victim to deviant thoughts brought about by repression.
But perhaps my most basic reason for my opposition to the Catholic faith is its utter inability to accept any other faith as valid. I strongly believe that there is a God, but I believe just as strongly that He doesn't care one way or another how we worship Him (or Her!)
If Catholics learn to accept that premise, I'll learn to accept them. Until then, I won't.
I've been asked why I'm not a Catholic. It's for many reasons, but chief among them is their treatment of women.
I have never been able to understand why any major organized religion would ever suppress the contributions women are able to make. Throughout history, no organization or civilization that ever suppressed the contributions that could be made by either gender has ever prospered.
But that's only one of my complaints. Another is the prohibition against marriage by the members of the clergy. In nearly every other major organized religion, the members of the clergy are not only allowed but encouraged to marry and reproduce. They see it as one of the most sure ways to ensure their religions continue to survive and thrive. It also prevents those same clergy members from falling victim to deviant thoughts brought about by repression.
But perhaps my most basic reason for my opposition to the Catholic faith is its utter inability to accept any other faith as valid. I strongly believe that there is a God, but I believe just as strongly that He doesn't care one way or another how we worship Him (or Her!)
If Catholics learn to accept that premise, I'll learn to accept them. Until then, I won't.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Pickle Jar
Recently, a co-worker of mine forwarded me an e-mail called "The Pickle Jar". It was written anonymously. It details the story of a young child who grows up in a small unnamed mill town. It seems that every night the father of this young child would drop his pocket change into an empty pickle jar on the nightstand beside his bed. When that jar became full, the coins would be sorted, rolled up, and taken to the bank to be deposited into a college fund for the child.
When asked about the jar, the father always told the child that he (or she) would have that money in a bank account someday and would never have to work in the town mill as a result. The jar would never be raided, even in times of desperate financial crisis. The jar was a way to ensure that the child would always have a better life than the parents had.
Afterward, once the child had reaped the benefits of that carefully saved college fund, the Pickle Jar disappeared. Years later, when the child had a child of his or her own, the Pickle Jar magically re-appeared on the nightstand, and a new tradition of saving pocket change for a college fund began.
Naturally, this bit of e-mail glurge is often dismissed by cynics like myself. It is often accompanied by expressions of blessing that causes people like me to dismiss it.
Obviously, this story is at best imagined from vague childhood memories, but it is a lesson that should be learned: Saving your money is the best way to invest it.
I recall an episode of The Simpsons wherein Homer was asked to create a "Swear Jar" which he would contribute a dollar to each time he swore while trying to build a homemade doghouse. By the time he was done with it, he had saved enough to buy a custom built doghouse.
If a fictional cartoon character can learn such a basic lesson, why can't we?
It is rumored that the late Roy Rogers once said that the easiest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket.
My own father is now living a very prosperous retirement because he saved his money.
I will pass on the story of The Pickle Jar to anyone I know. Minus the sickening sweetness of course.
Maybe it will inspire some folks to do what is sensible with their money: Save it!
When asked about the jar, the father always told the child that he (or she) would have that money in a bank account someday and would never have to work in the town mill as a result. The jar would never be raided, even in times of desperate financial crisis. The jar was a way to ensure that the child would always have a better life than the parents had.
Afterward, once the child had reaped the benefits of that carefully saved college fund, the Pickle Jar disappeared. Years later, when the child had a child of his or her own, the Pickle Jar magically re-appeared on the nightstand, and a new tradition of saving pocket change for a college fund began.
Naturally, this bit of e-mail glurge is often dismissed by cynics like myself. It is often accompanied by expressions of blessing that causes people like me to dismiss it.
Obviously, this story is at best imagined from vague childhood memories, but it is a lesson that should be learned: Saving your money is the best way to invest it.
I recall an episode of The Simpsons wherein Homer was asked to create a "Swear Jar" which he would contribute a dollar to each time he swore while trying to build a homemade doghouse. By the time he was done with it, he had saved enough to buy a custom built doghouse.
If a fictional cartoon character can learn such a basic lesson, why can't we?
It is rumored that the late Roy Rogers once said that the easiest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket.
My own father is now living a very prosperous retirement because he saved his money.
I will pass on the story of The Pickle Jar to anyone I know. Minus the sickening sweetness of course.
Maybe it will inspire some folks to do what is sensible with their money: Save it!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Webcomics
Once upon a time, I relied on the daily newspaper comic strips as my only source of daily animated entertainment.
To a certain extent, I still do. I borrow a newspaper from a co-worker, read Non-sequitur, and Dilbert. then I hand the paper back.
And then I go on-line, and first read the daily webcomic Least I Could Do. Then I go and see if Nuklear Power has a new comic up. Then I go to Order of the Stick.
These are just a few of the regular webcomics that have managed to make it as commercial successes. And they all did it with no support from any traditional media whatsoever.
None of these webcomics became well-known by advertising in traditional media either. All have popularity spread by word-of-web.
The same thing happened with comics since before the turn of the 19th century. All of them have spread because they were more popular than the medium that carried them. Editorial cartoons have and will long outlast the original medium that carried them.
If the traditional media wants to survive, they will realize and adapt to this fact.
To a certain extent, I still do. I borrow a newspaper from a co-worker, read Non-sequitur, and Dilbert. then I hand the paper back.
And then I go on-line, and first read the daily webcomic Least I Could Do. Then I go and see if Nuklear Power has a new comic up. Then I go to Order of the Stick.
These are just a few of the regular webcomics that have managed to make it as commercial successes. And they all did it with no support from any traditional media whatsoever.
None of these webcomics became well-known by advertising in traditional media either. All have popularity spread by word-of-web.
The same thing happened with comics since before the turn of the 19th century. All of them have spread because they were more popular than the medium that carried them. Editorial cartoons have and will long outlast the original medium that carried them.
If the traditional media wants to survive, they will realize and adapt to this fact.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Roman Polanski
Roman Polanski has been arrested. Apparently, all parents of 13 year old girls can sleep easy.
At least, that is what the L.A. District Attorney's office would apparently have us believe.
Polanski was arrested for drugging and raping a 13-year old girl. It was a crime. One to which he pleaded guilty. And spent time in jail undergoing psychiatric evaluation for.
He had been able to arrange a plea bargain with the state to avoid major jail time. I don't know the circumstances of this agreement, but apparently Polanski had found out that the judge in the case was planning to refuse it.
So Polanski did what anyone else with the means and the opportunity to do so would do: he fled.
He spent the better part of the next 40 years living abroad, never able to come home again. In the years since, Polanski has made dozens of films and won Oscars that he has not been able to accept. Meanwhile, his victim has gotten on with her life, is married and a mother, and had probably hoped that this particular part of her life would never be dredged up again.
But it has happened.
Some ambitious L.A. DA, hoping no doubt for bigger and better things in the future, arranged for Polanski to be arrested while in Switzerland. And the whole can of worms pops open again.
So, Roman Polanski will now spend months in jail fighting extradition. His victim, who thought this was behind her, is dragged into it again. And the news organizations of the world focus their attention on this story.
And they ignore the stories about other 13 year old girls being raped, or worse.
THAT, my friends, is the real tragedy of this story. Today, now, even as I write this, there are crimes being committed against young girls all over the world that are tens or hundred times worse than what happened to Polanski's victim. A good portion of those crimes are probably happening right here in the good old U.S. of A.
Nobody will care about these, of course, because the perpetrators and victims of these crimes are not famous. Not worth reporting about.
Not worth caring about.
At least, that is what the L.A. District Attorney's office would apparently have us believe.
Polanski was arrested for drugging and raping a 13-year old girl. It was a crime. One to which he pleaded guilty. And spent time in jail undergoing psychiatric evaluation for.
He had been able to arrange a plea bargain with the state to avoid major jail time. I don't know the circumstances of this agreement, but apparently Polanski had found out that the judge in the case was planning to refuse it.
So Polanski did what anyone else with the means and the opportunity to do so would do: he fled.
He spent the better part of the next 40 years living abroad, never able to come home again. In the years since, Polanski has made dozens of films and won Oscars that he has not been able to accept. Meanwhile, his victim has gotten on with her life, is married and a mother, and had probably hoped that this particular part of her life would never be dredged up again.
But it has happened.
Some ambitious L.A. DA, hoping no doubt for bigger and better things in the future, arranged for Polanski to be arrested while in Switzerland. And the whole can of worms pops open again.
So, Roman Polanski will now spend months in jail fighting extradition. His victim, who thought this was behind her, is dragged into it again. And the news organizations of the world focus their attention on this story.
And they ignore the stories about other 13 year old girls being raped, or worse.
THAT, my friends, is the real tragedy of this story. Today, now, even as I write this, there are crimes being committed against young girls all over the world that are tens or hundred times worse than what happened to Polanski's victim. A good portion of those crimes are probably happening right here in the good old U.S. of A.
Nobody will care about these, of course, because the perpetrators and victims of these crimes are not famous. Not worth reporting about.
Not worth caring about.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
What is the Alternative?
We are slaves to fossil fuels.
And why not? They are currently the most efficient producers of energy. Be they coal, oil, natural gas, or whatever, there is currently no viable alternative.
Doubt me? Consider.
Wind power: I recently went on vacation through Ontario. I saw what wind farms look like. Giant towering turbines that thrill on first glance, then simply become eyesores that produce little return for great investment.
Solar: A pipe dream. Unless and until the energy eggheads develop the perfect solar panel that can defeat cloud cover, it will never work.
Nuclear: Will always be dangerous and toxic. Nuclear power will never be safe until Fusion is here. Fusion is the energy of the future--and it always will be.
So we are stuck with burning our fossil fuels until they run out. We don't have an alternative. And when they do run out, we will be forced back into a simpler existence. Maybe not within my lifetime, but it will happen.
Maybe not. There may be some egghead someday soon that will solve this problem, hopefully before my nephews are forced to deal with it.
God, I hope so.
And why not? They are currently the most efficient producers of energy. Be they coal, oil, natural gas, or whatever, there is currently no viable alternative.
Doubt me? Consider.
Wind power: I recently went on vacation through Ontario. I saw what wind farms look like. Giant towering turbines that thrill on first glance, then simply become eyesores that produce little return for great investment.
Solar: A pipe dream. Unless and until the energy eggheads develop the perfect solar panel that can defeat cloud cover, it will never work.
Nuclear: Will always be dangerous and toxic. Nuclear power will never be safe until Fusion is here. Fusion is the energy of the future--and it always will be.
So we are stuck with burning our fossil fuels until they run out. We don't have an alternative. And when they do run out, we will be forced back into a simpler existence. Maybe not within my lifetime, but it will happen.
Maybe not. There may be some egghead someday soon that will solve this problem, hopefully before my nephews are forced to deal with it.
God, I hope so.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Typical
Naturally.
What do I see when I tune my non-cable television?
ABC: Obama's speech to Congress.
CBS: Obama's speech to Congress.
NBC: Obama's speech to Congress.
PBS: Obama's speech to Congress.
FOX: So You Think You can Dance.
If anyone at this point thinks that Fox is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, please consider how many times Fox didn't show a speech and/or Press conference given by George W. Bush.
What do I see when I tune my non-cable television?
ABC: Obama's speech to Congress.
CBS: Obama's speech to Congress.
NBC: Obama's speech to Congress.
PBS: Obama's speech to Congress.
FOX: So You Think You can Dance.
If anyone at this point thinks that Fox is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, please consider how many times Fox didn't show a speech and/or Press conference given by George W. Bush.
Monday, September 07, 2009
A Trend I'd Like to End
I have a bad habit.
I have this notorious tendency to avoid seeing CG animated movies in theaters.
This habit has caused me to miss seeing any number of quality films over the last 2 decades. They are, in no particular order: Toy Story (1 & 2), Shrek (All), The Incredibles, Cars, Finding Nemo, Bolt, Monsters Inc., A Bug's Life, and many, many others.
(I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not gonna link to those. I'm not your damn search engine!)
You see, I am a reasonably mature adult, and I have this deeply embedded fear of going to see any animated movie in a theater, for fear that I will be labeled a juvenile.
It's a fear that I am sure is shared with many other adults, and one that I and others need to get over.
Typically, these CG animated features are of the highest possible quality, if for no other reason than that the sheer effort involved in producing them ensures that no CG project will be greenlighted if there is no assurance to the producers that it will profit them. Seriously. These things typically take over 2 years to produce and can involve dozens or even hundreds of people, an investment of time and effort practically unheard of in Hollyweird.
Now. I have seen all of the above mentioned movies at home, on DVD. And they were all tremendously entertaining. I can't imagine what it must have been like to see them on a Movie screen.
So the next big CG film that comes out, I will be there. I promise. Really.
I have this notorious tendency to avoid seeing CG animated movies in theaters.
This habit has caused me to miss seeing any number of quality films over the last 2 decades. They are, in no particular order: Toy Story (1 & 2), Shrek (All), The Incredibles, Cars, Finding Nemo, Bolt, Monsters Inc., A Bug's Life, and many, many others.
(I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not gonna link to those. I'm not your damn search engine!)
You see, I am a reasonably mature adult, and I have this deeply embedded fear of going to see any animated movie in a theater, for fear that I will be labeled a juvenile.
It's a fear that I am sure is shared with many other adults, and one that I and others need to get over.
Typically, these CG animated features are of the highest possible quality, if for no other reason than that the sheer effort involved in producing them ensures that no CG project will be greenlighted if there is no assurance to the producers that it will profit them. Seriously. These things typically take over 2 years to produce and can involve dozens or even hundreds of people, an investment of time and effort practically unheard of in Hollyweird.
Now. I have seen all of the above mentioned movies at home, on DVD. And they were all tremendously entertaining. I can't imagine what it must have been like to see them on a Movie screen.
So the next big CG film that comes out, I will be there. I promise. Really.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
The Great Lakes
Recently I was on a vacation trip to Manitoulin Island in Ontario (Canada)
(In case you wondered what or where that is, check here).
It's a very nice place. It can get a bit cold at night, which is not surprising considering it is roughly at the same latitude as Northern Minnesota and Michigan's Upper Peninsula (places where summer typically lasts about a week and a half). But there are several nice beaches and plenty of sights to see, and a whole lot of isolated spots for folks who want to get away from civilization (the largest town on the island contains roughly 1800 people--there are more deer than people living on this island.)
Or, at least, there WERE several nice beaches.
You see, the Great Lakes are at their lowest level in decades. So all over the island, what were once pristine sandy beaches are now mosquito-infested, goose-crap covered swamps, teeming with bacteria (I picked up a bacterial infection from one of them that landed me in the emergency room.)
This fact should scare everyone on a number of levels. The Great Lakes account for roughly 22% of the world's supply of fresh water. They supply water to nearly every state and province that touches one of them. And they are being heavily overused.
They also act as a conduit for international shipping, which is a source of invasive species that threaten their delicate ecosystems.
Anyway, to make a long story short: Humans are slowly and systematically killing the Great Lakes. And if we don't stop doing it, the Great Lakes region is going to face a water crisis that is going to make what the western states are going through look like a 2-week drought in comparison.
(In case you wondered what or where that is, check here).
It's a very nice place. It can get a bit cold at night, which is not surprising considering it is roughly at the same latitude as Northern Minnesota and Michigan's Upper Peninsula (places where summer typically lasts about a week and a half). But there are several nice beaches and plenty of sights to see, and a whole lot of isolated spots for folks who want to get away from civilization (the largest town on the island contains roughly 1800 people--there are more deer than people living on this island.)
Or, at least, there WERE several nice beaches.
You see, the Great Lakes are at their lowest level in decades. So all over the island, what were once pristine sandy beaches are now mosquito-infested, goose-crap covered swamps, teeming with bacteria (I picked up a bacterial infection from one of them that landed me in the emergency room.)
This fact should scare everyone on a number of levels. The Great Lakes account for roughly 22% of the world's supply of fresh water. They supply water to nearly every state and province that touches one of them. And they are being heavily overused.
They also act as a conduit for international shipping, which is a source of invasive species that threaten their delicate ecosystems.
Anyway, to make a long story short: Humans are slowly and systematically killing the Great Lakes. And if we don't stop doing it, the Great Lakes region is going to face a water crisis that is going to make what the western states are going through look like a 2-week drought in comparison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)