Tuesday, March 31, 2009

The Day of the Flying Car: Never to Be.

If you haven't seen or heard of this, you're living under a rock and you're about to get squished by a giant foot. This is the realization of all those dreams and wishes in the 50's & 60's. At long last a flying car exists.

Well actually, it isn't so much a flying car as a plane that can compact and drive on roads. Yeah, it will be awesome to drive the plane from your house to the airport, fold down the wings and fly away. That will be great for those who have a cool $195,000 stuffed under their mattress. For those of us who don't grow money on trees, we are stuck in our measly, non-flying, antique automobiles.

But will this day ever truly come? Will the day arrive at which point roads are obsolete and everyone flies everywhere? Sadly, I must disappoint my inner geek and face the inevitable logistical facts at hand. It will never be a reality.

I have to imagine that when air travel was first introduced to the public, more than a few people thought it would be fun to combine a car and plane. I almost think that they were so popularized at the same time that the fact that either one existed was a miracle of science. People were as equally amazed at a motorized carriage as they were a flying contraption. Both revolutionized the way we travel and the way people thought of distance.

Something began to happen when these techs took off. Infrastructure to support both had to built and expanded. While automobiles had very little to change, a network of roads have existed for centuries, Airplanes required mini hubs to be built. Thus the airport was born. Roads have changed to meet the volume of traffic that has steadily increased with each passing year. Vast arteries of highways and freeways criss-cross our landscape, enabling car owners and drivers to move quickly from one place to another.

Firstly, let's explore what would happen if the flying car were a reality. Everybody has one, and for fun, we'll say they take off vertically like the delorean in Back to the Future II. First problem collisions. Some sort of network of automated maneuvering would have to be in place to navigate a city. A fender bender 300 feet in the air could create a calamity. But what if they could be neutrally buoyant, meaning that at complete stop, it would be floating? That sounds good.

Ok then what would happen to roads if everybody took to the sky? I'm thinking a sort of Route 66 effect could take over across the countryside. Small pit stops that used to provide support for that long drive across the desert (considering our new buoyant cars are much more fuel efficient) would suddenly be devoid of any purpose. Connecting roads that stretch between cities would almost certainly become obsolete. Inner city roadways would still be functional to a degree for those quick round the corner trips, but honestly if I could hover 10 feet across the street, I wouldn't bother driving.

I think the biggest problem that we would have is the sheer amount of clutter we would create in the skies. Can you imagine a traffic jam? Would the government be forced to create skyways? But if skyways were implemented, then what would be the point of the flying car? Moving a freeway upward wouldn't solve any problems other than easing expansion. Suddenly adding those extra two lanes wouldn't take 2 years of construction.

So what is the point of all this? I have no idea. I just saw a car fly the other day and it made me think, what if? But then I started thinking it would create so many logistical issues, that thinking about it hurts my brain.

I have no doubt that someday personal air travel will be more popular, and hopefully less expensive. But I don't think the automobile, a vehicle that drives on the ground, will ever go away or be replaced by a flying car. Just won't happen, at least not in my lifetime.

If you're interested in the drivable plane pictured at the top, go here.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 30, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Released: September 23, 1969
Directed by: George Roy Hill
Starring: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Katharine Ross

Plot in a Nutshell:
Butch (Newman) and Sundance (Redford) are two robbers in old west America. The business of holding up banks and trains has been going well for the two, until the law comes after them.

What I thought:
Two stellar performers in their cinematic prime meet in this film that could be described as one of the best buddy pics ever made. I would have to agree. Newman and Redford make one of the best pairings in film that I have ever seen. This and the Sting have certainly cemented them among the legends of cinema history.

Even though their entire profession is made from robbing and stealing, the film makes light of the situations and their actions. This is a film where the heroes are thieves and the villains are the eyes and guns of the law. These kinds of films tend to be very entertaining, however as soon as you start applying logic and any sense of righteousness, the characters loose their luster swiftly.

I guess I was expecting the film to be a little heavier in tone. It does get there towards the end of the film, but even then they are still firing their buddy shtick on all cylinders. I'm not saying it was bad, but I was expecting it to be harder. But I guess coming from these two, I should have expected better.

Not enough can be said about Paul Newman and Robert Redford. These guys know how to work and act together as one cohesive unit. They play so much off of each other, that you find yourself wrapped up in their friendly chummy bantering far too often. These guys are awesome.

A big problem I had with the film was the music. Composed by Burt Bacharach, its jazzy nature detracts from the film on more than one occasion. I understand that the film was intended to be light, and the music certainly aids in this regard, however I found it to be very distracting when it shouldn't be. The film could have benefited from a more traditional and rousing score, but then it would be a different film, and I don't think that would be a good thing.

In the end I found that I really enjoyed the film. There was one sequence that I loved. It is the equivalent of a high speed chase in a western. A posse of lawmen are on the trail of Butch and Sundance after a failed robbery attempt. Taking place over several days and I don't know how many states/territories, they are slowly tracked and chased all the way up against a cliff drop off. It was the single best sequence I have seen put together in quite some time. Beginning with their confidence in an easy escape, they slowly realize they are in a run for their lives. I thought it was exhilarating to see unfold.

This is a must see film.

Bottom Line:
Strong performers in strong leads make strong movies, Newman and Redford make their characters and this film well worth a watch.

B+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, March 27, 2009

Art for late payment? Riiiiiight.

I found this a while ago and thought it was very funny. So here take a read...

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Wednesday 8 Oct 2008 12.19pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Overdue account

Dear David,
Our records indicate that your account is overdue by the amount of $233.95. If you have already made this payment please contact us within the next 7 days to confirm payment has been applied to your account and is no longer outstanding.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles



From: David Thorne
Date: Wednesday 8 Oct 2008 12.37pm
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,
I do not have any money so am sending you this drawing I did of a spider instead.
I value the drawing at $233.95 so trust that this settles the matter.

Regards, David.





From: Jane Gilles
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 10.07am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Overdue account

Dear David,
Thankyou for contacting us. Unfortunately we are unable to accept drawings as payment and your account remains in arrears of $233.95. Please contact us within the next 7 days to confirm payment has been applied to your account and is no longer outstanding.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles



From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 10.32am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,
Can I have my drawing of a spider back then please.

Regards, David.



From: Jane Gilles
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 11.42am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Overdue account

Dear David,
You emailed the drawing to me. Do you want me to email it back to you?

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles



From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 11.56am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,

Yes please.

Regards, David.



From: Jane Gilles
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 12.14pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Overdue account

Attached





From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 09.22am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Whose spider is that?

Dear Jane,
Are you sure this drawing of a spider is the one I sent you? This spider only has seven legs and I do not feel I would have made such an elementary mistake when I drew it.

Regards, David.



From: Jane Gilles
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.03am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Whose spider is that?

Dear David,
Yes it is the same drawing. I copied and pasted it from the email you sent me on the 8th.
David your account is still overdue by the amount of $233.95.
Please make this payment as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles



From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.05am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Automated Out of Office Response

Thankyou for contacting me.
I am currently away on leave, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Regards, David.



From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.08am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Hello, I am back and have read through your emails and accept that despite missing a leg, that drawing of a spider may indeed be the one I sent you. I realise with hindsight that it is possible you rejected the drawing of a spider due to this obvious limb ommission but did not point it out in an effort to avoid hurting my feelings. As such, I am sending you a revised drawing with the correct number of legs as full payment for any amount outstanding. I trust this will bring the matter to a conclusion.

Regards, David.





From: Jane Gilles
Date: Monday 13 Oct 2008 2.51pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Dear David,
As I have stated, we do not accept drawings in lei of money for accounts outstanding.
We accept cheque, bank cheque, money order or cash. Please make a payment this week to avoid incurring any additional fees.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles



From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 13 Oct 2008 3.17pm
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

I understand and will definitely make a payment this week if I remember. As you have not accepted my second drawing as payment, please return the drawing to me as soon as possible. It was silly of me to assume I could provide you with something of completely no value whatsoever, waste your time and then attach such a large amount to it.

Regards, David.



From: Jane Gilles
Date: Tuesday 14 Oct 2008 11.18am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Attached

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

YEAH!!! 50th post!! Now for something completely different...

In this celebration of my 50th post here at the 'ole Observer I am going to do something very different, and perhaps a little strange. I am not going to rant, or rave, or even offer a "skewed perspective." Nay. Today, I will praise and celebrate Aquafina water, and their simple, wide-mouth 1-liter bottles.

Let me first point out that I think the idea of bottled water is good only from a convenience standpoint. I am not a foofoo person who thinks that drinking water, bottled in Fiji, is good or tastes any different than any other. I am also not a very particular person who must have lime, lemon, cherry, or all of the above flavors injected into my frosty H2O. I simply see bottled water as what it is; a nice, cold, healthier option to the many other options at your local 7-11s. I have no problem drinking the water from my tap at home, but when I am out and about and want water, I have no problem forking over $1.50 for a liter of aqua-awesomeness.

You may ask, what is it about Aquafina specifically that I find so "amazing?" Simply put, it is their wide-mouthed 1-liter bottle. When I am thirsty and craving water, I don't want to be slurping at a bottle top the size of my pinkie, nor do I need a so-called "sport bottle" cap that is SO small, I have to crush the bottle to get any flow. I want a large, man-sized opening, something I can chug easily and effortlessly. The little openings, I end up squeezing hard to get the same quantity, only I must stop part way to let the air back in. With Aquafina's wide mouth I can just chug and chug with no problems or interruptions, save for a breath of air.

Secondly, Aquafina is everywhere. If you can find a Pepsi, Mt. Dew, or daresay a Slice, Aquafina is a few slots over. I never have to worry about being in a different state with a different spring water company. It is found nationwide, and in some cases internationally, and it is just as good in California as it is in New York.

Also I have found that some waters actually dry my mouth and make me thirstier. Dasani is the worst that I know of. Every single bottle of Aquafina is exactly the same everywhere I go. No dryness, a big mouth, ice cold, and generally the cheapest option. I have no reason to buy anything else, especially since we all know that they all come from the tap, (even Fiji, I am afraid).

I don't care if it comes from the tap, a spring, melted from a mountain glacier, from the islands of Fiji, or where ever. It could have cascaded down the succulent bare butt of the Greek God Aphrodite herself, it ain't worth more than $1.50. You can dress it up in a cool bottle all you want, it is still water. Water is water and water is water. No matter how you slice it, it is the same in every bottle. I just prefer Aquafina because it is cheap, found everywhere, and has that very nice wide opening.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a cold liter of Aquafina to drink.

Pepsi, you can make that check out to Matthew Todhunter.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Documentaries: Truth? or Entertainment?

Watch a documentary. Doesn't matter what kind. It could be a 10 minute web series. A 30 minute special on History Channel. It could even be an epic, award-winning 10-hour miniseries on the BBC. But in every single one you have what are called "subject matter experts." These are people who are either in suits, or lab coats, who will spout off information for the camera and in turn the documentary.

I have been increasingly watching more and more documentaries of late. I think I am just curious about the world outside my own, and documentaries take me there. And That is the power of a good documentary, to be able to transport the viewer as well as informing them of things unknown. Documentaries can be very powerful, but just as easily be very damaging.

So, just because they are wearing the clothes of truth, with their so-called "experts," does that not mean they are true? I don't think so.

In the past few months I have been watching this show on DVD called Penn & Teller's Bullshit. The point of the show is to take something that is deemed to be fact, or believed by a group of people, and then to show you why it is complete bullshit. A quick example would be recycling. You think it's good? You think it's helping the environment? You think it's doing more good than harm? Well you'd be wrong, or so the show says.

Bullshit is a great show. Some of their points I disagree with, but overall I find it a fascinating watch. Every show I learn something I never knew before. But can I trust it?

I don't know.

A documentary can be skewed any which way the makers want it to be. Look at Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." Complete B.S. right? What about something with a bit more (hot) air, let's say An Inconvenient Truth. I recently watched a fascinating doc named "Man on Wire." It won this year's Oscar for best doc and was about the man who walked a wire between the twin towers in the 70s. It was fantastic. You must check it out. Very good story.

I maintain the opinion that these are entertainments. Yes they are fascinating, yes they may show you some numbers or some statistics, but I don't think it is to be trusted. You can find an "expert" for anything. If you want to interview an expert on Pet Psychology, you can find one. If you want to find an expert on the latest appearances of Elvis in Vegas, you can.

There are nut heads everywhere. The planet is crawling with weridos, creeps, and plain idiots. But you know what? I could sit them down in a chair, put a nice light on them, ask them questions, and with a little creative editing I could get them to spin anything anyway I want. They could spout off information that would make your head spin, and I could sell it. Granted a certain amount of credibility must be achieved, i.e. PHDs, professors, and the like.

This is what I want to talk about. So often we see these interviews, these so called experts in these documentary style shows or movies. They will spell out the doom and gloom. Point to a couple of studies and wallah, documentary subject matter expert!!But are they right? Just because they have a doctorate hanging on the wall and wear a lab coat means we should be trusting them right?

I think differently, and I'll tell you why...

It all boils down to a source. Information comes from somewhere. The majority of us trust others to provide the information we don't know. We scour the web, googling or looking things up on Wikipedia. All of human knowledge is available, only a web search away. But where does this information come from. Where do these opinions form?

You could say research. But what exactly are you researching? Books? Tapes? Other people's opinions. You are researching the truth? But how do you know the truth? Unless you are the scientist in the lab, injecting that hormone into the rat, you don't know. Unless you are the Pharaoh of Egypt himself, and not some archaeologist interpreting remains at a site, you don't know. And you may never know.

The point is this, and it is very simple... Don't be quick to jump on a cause. Don't be hasty in making a judgement. And don't bandwagon on other people's ideas simply because somebody said it was true. Look at the data yourself. Judge from your own eyes, not what others put before you.

And if your watching that documentary, enjoy it for what it is; entertainment. Albeit, a good documentary can open up your eyes to things you weren't aware of. But it shouldn't convince you of anything.

I was watching a documentary on Wal mart over the weekend called : "Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Price." It was about several issues including the poor employment conditions, putting Mom&Pop's out of business, and outsourcing labor in Asia. It was very interesting. It made me aware of some things I had never though of before. But is it making me picket on the street corner? No. Is it making me boycott them and their abysmal employment standards? No.

Why?

Because I allow for the possibility that it isn't fact. I allow that it isn't the be-all, end-all source information source on Wal mart. And in truth, I have begun doing a bit of research into what exactly they are doing over in Wally-World, because it certainly peaked my curiosity. That is the most important thing a documentary can achieve; challenging it's viewers to ask questions, and search for answers.

I implore every reader of this to go out and watch or listen to these documentaries. They are an important part of television, film, and radio. But I urge you, don't be so quick to rage or to jump on the bandwagon. Because when your only source is a piece of enlightening fluff, you haven't really learned anything, have you.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 23, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: The Evil Dead

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The Evil Dead
Released: October 15, 1981
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: Bruce Campbell

Plot in a Nutshell:
Five friends go together out into the country to spend a weekend in a cabin. When they discover a ominous book and recording, they inadvertently awaken some body-possessing demons.

What I thought:
I'm going to let you know, this film is chock filled with violence, blood, and carnage. You have been forewarned.

Should horror films filled with gore be so funny? I think they almost become so funny simply because of the ridiculous amounts of carnage. But more so than simply being filled with gratuitous violence, this film works on a different, creepy, and altogether zany level. It is actually a bit screwed up, which oddly enough, makes it all the more enjoyable.

I'm going to say right off the bat that this film was made with very little money, so as far as production values go; it has none. Zilch. The makeup is overdone, the camera work is jilted, and the acting is, frankly, amateur. But for some reason it doesn't matter. Told with no budget, the film stretches hard to bring you some great low budget effects and good old fashioned blood and gore.

It takes some time, but eventually Bruce Campbell's Ash character becomes the center of the movie. In the beginning when he is sharing scenes with the other members of the cast, he doesn't stand out at all. But when hell literally breaks loose, the campy Bruce Campbell that I have grown to love so much, shines through. The rest of the cast is uninteresting (that is until they become demonized). After their transformations into hideous demons, they become a little annoying. Endlessly screaming and wailing does tend to hurt the ears.

The fun in all this disgusting blood and guts comes in the execution of the gore (pun intended). It is done with just enough over the top craze that it ceases to become terrifying, and instead becomes plain silly. When it opens, the film works its atmosphere. Wallowing in its eeriness, the first half feels very much like a traditional horror film. But when the demons are set loose, it completely transitions into full blown bloody revelry. Yet, it is overdone to such an extreme that it begins to border on comedy.

Playing on some real fears, the film works exceptionally at exploiting the terrors of the dark shadowy basement, the foreboding woods, and the howl of the wind. If you like campy overdone horror films, look no further than this classic. I greatly enjoyed watching this. Though it may be disturbing to some, disgusting to others, this kind of over-the-top horror holds a little warm place in my film-loving heart.

Bottom Line:
Despite its low-budget inception and limited production, this campy classic does the horror genre proud. And if you're like me, it is worth a good laugh.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Meteor hits Earth, call Bruce Willis.

So I watched Misery yesterday for the first time, and Oh. MY. GAAWWWD! That woman is a little bit psycho. Would do a Classic Monday with it, but it doesn't meet the stipulation of being older than 25 years. But instead I thought I'd share something equally terrifying... the end of the WORLD!! Scary stuff...



It's an animation of what could happen if a meteor 500KM in diameter crashed into the Pacific Ocean.

Better get the oil drillers ready.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 16, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: Dr. Strangelove

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Released: January 29, 1964
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
Starring: Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Slim Pickens

Plot in a Nutshell:
A US General, without any order to do so, initiates a nuclear attack on Russia. When the President finds out, he and his advisers try to keep the situation in control and begin an unprecedented communication with Russia, while one of the B52s armed with nukes gets nearer to its target.

What I thought:
I don't know where to begin with this one. It wears the clothes of a serious film, yet speaks with a comedic tongue. It isn't light in the least (we are talking about nuclear armageddon here). Funny at times, scary at others, this film seems to capture a brilliant sense of high-stakes satire. However, it is still a Kubrick film, so expect some oddities.

Firstly, let me point out that I have never seen a film like this. Normally when you watch a film that is a send-up of a particular topic, it will be a bit more farce and less gravity. Yet somehow, Dr. Strangelove manages to balance a perfect mixture of outrageous comedy, and a lot of heavy, within the severity of the situations.

"You can't fight in here, this is the War Room."
The performances are great. George C. Scott is hilarious as his over the top General (which was not his intent; Kubrick tricked him into playing it extreme by saying they were warm up takes, not to be used, well he used them). Peter Sellers works overtime in three roles, perfectly capturing each character's plight and still managing to keep things light and funny. And then there is the always funny Slim Pickins as the B52 pilot the story focuses on. I think everybody has heard of his memorable trip on a falling nuke.

For some reason I am having a difficult time writing about this film. I know I got everything. It isn't like its a difficult film to get. But there is something I feel I can't put into words. I can only recommend it if you haven't seen it. It puts cold war hysteria in quite a different light than you've ever seen before. And though it is a satire, the situations seem all too real, and this is almost what I would have expected to really go down.

It's a film that I will be revisiting.

Bottom Line:
A very strong film. Kubrick weaves his brilliant satire with little drag and a lot of funny.

B+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Polar bear crisis. What crisis?

I am sick and tired of people touting the imminent danger of polar bear extinction due to the ecological terror known as "Global Warming."

I was watching the documentary series Planet Earth (highly recommend) and during a bit on polar bears, the narrator was going on and on about the disappearance of the ice and how the polar bear needs it in order to survive and hunt. Then they showed footage of a bear swimming in the water, saying "if he doesn't find land soon, he'll drown."

Please...

"Oh the poor bear, he wasn't given those massive paws and hundreds of pounds of fat to swim around in. He needs our help. Oh no!"

There's also a commercial playing on TV now urging people to donate to the "cause" (not sure which cause it is, probably the look-at-this-poor-skinny-bear-swimming-and-give-us-money kind of cause). There almost like those feed the hungry kid TV commercials, where they go into a destitute town show a few sad faces and bloated bellies and the money will flow. The difference is that one is an animal doing what it normally does, hunting and eating, it's a survivor. The other are people who are persecuted by war, famine, and shitty luck. You choose which needs your money.

But you know, even if the planet was warming, which if you actually do a little research and look into, you find that there is no conclusive evidence saying such, you'll discover that in fact polar bear numbers are on the rise. What?! What?! What?! "Polar bear numbers are on the rise? How can that be? Their habitat is melting right? That's what Noah Wyle says in the commercial. It has to be true!!"

But it isn't.

Polar bears swim, they are pretty damn good at it. All that fat and fur, makes for a great water insulator as well as having massive paws for paddles (God knew what he was doing here). The bears hunt on land AND in the water. It is a part of their yearly activity to swim regularly in the ocean for food. Polar bears have been documented 60 miles away from land, hunting. But somehow environmentalist fearmongers spin it to meet their own selfish needs.

This is an image that has been used by environmental groups to help promote their ideological and political agendas...

Did you know that the above was taken in the middle of summer, where it isn't at all uncommon to see bears doing just this, taking a float on a piece of ice. They actually will ambush seals laying on these mini icebergs. As well as jump into the water after fish and beluga whales.

If you think I am just ranting on about something I don't know about. Here's some of what experts think about this...

"Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present. It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria."

-Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist

Or how about this opinion...

“Polar bears, for example, survived several episodes of much warmer climate over the last 10,000 years than exists today. There is no evidence to suggest that the polar bear or its food supply is in danger of disappearing entirely with increased Arctic warming, regardless of the dire fairy-tale scenarios predicted by computer models.”

-Dr. Susan Crockford, Evolutionary Biologist and Paleozoologist at University of Victoria

Here's what somebody thinks of the political reasons to make the polar bear a threatened species...

"The bottom line is that the attempt to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is not based on any evidence that the polar bear populations are declining or in trouble. It is based on computer climate models fraught with uncertainties. The truth is that we clearly do not know enough about most of the polar bear populations to make the argument for listing. And frankly, listing the polar bear isn't about the bear either. It is about trying to bring about climate change regulations using the most powerful development-stopping law in the land, the Endangered Species Act. Polar bears are being used to achieve long sought left-wing environmental regulatory policies."

-Sen. James Inhofe, OK

Summary:
Arctic ice is receding every year. Many are attributing it to "global warming," however temperatures everywhere else are actually declining. The polar bear is being heralded as the posterboy for the global warming campaign, however, they are not diminshing in number, they are in fact flourishing.

All of this boils down to, is people lying to us, and telling the uninformed, faulty information. Do your research people, don't listen to these fabrications just because they play some sad music and show you a bear enjoying a leisurely swim. It is complete B.S.

I can't stand people scare mongering (looking at you Al Gore) just to accomplish their personal agendas.

OK ranting over, resume your normal life.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Riots erupt for "Next Top Model"

Here's the lowdown: smoking car stops on a street in New York. Directly beside the smoking car is thousands of wannabee models waiting to audition for "America's Next Top Model." Somebody yells, "It's gonna blow!" Pandemonium ensues.


I would laugh at the idea of a thousand screaming models, except for the fact that some people did get injured, and somebody could have been crushed. It just goes to show how dangerous a mob of desperate models can be.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

One large Sequoia

I took this photo, or I should say series of photos, last summer when we were in Sequoia National Forest. Nothing fancy, just a big tree. Should have had a person at the base to show how tall it really is. Just know it is TALL!

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Ratings exist for a reason, use them!

In television, film, video games and music, systems exist to inform parents of nature of the content. In broadcast television, you see the little block pop up every 30 minutes telling you what sort of content is being played. Movies have the MPAA, which rates released films G, PG, PG13, R, or NC17. Video Games have the ESRB, which rates games E, T, M, AO etc. Music merely puts an explicit label on a disc if it contains profanity.

So why do parents bring their kids to a film, like Watchmen (which let me tell you was very violent and the rating said so), and then complain about the violence of the film all across the Internet? Why do parents allow their kids to play video games, clearly labeled Mature, then go and yell at the stores for selling them in the first place?

If you don't mind your kid playing Mature rated video games, or mind them seeing R rated films, then good on you. Take some initiative and explore what you feel to be appropriate for your little sponge. But stop blaming a system that works just because you decided not to take an active interest in what your child watches or plays.

These same parents cry out that the system is broken. I have no idea how. stores won't sell m rated games to kids and Theaters won't sell tickets to r rated movies to anyone under age unless a parent or guardian is present. When I worked at the theater, our managers made a game of catching the little rapscallions when they tried to sneak into r rated movies. They would stand in the back of the theater, and when a couple of kids came in, they challenged them for their ticket stubs. Virtually 95% of them were sent away. It was awesome.

So what is the problem here? I say it's the parents. If you don't want to let your kids see a film because its r rated that's your choice. If you don't mind them seeing it than fine. My only stipulation would be that you can't blame anybody but yourself when you walk into a movie like SAW and then complain it was too violent.

Parenting is a parents job, not Target's, not Wal-mart's, not cinemark, not showcase, not any theater, not any store. They enforce the rules (or pay a steep fine if they break them). Only blame yourself for not being informed. The next step is to then get informed, and know what your kids are doing. It's your job.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 9, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: The Omega Man

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The Omega Man
Released: August 1, 1971
Directed by: Boris Sagal
Starring: Charlton Heston, Anthony Zerbe, & Rosalind Cash

Plot in a Nutshell:
Dr. Robert Neville (Heston) is the last human on earth after a deadly outbreak of a strange plague that kills many and mutates some into vampiric creatures. Neville is bent on killing/curing the creatures who in turn are bent on getting rid of him.

What I thought:
This is a very interesting story, one that I fell in love with after seeing the recent I Am Legend. The idea that mutated creatures after an outbreak can think, plan, and could be construed as victims, turns every vampire/zombie premise on its head. I love it! But as much as I enjoy the idea, this adaption of Richard Matheson's I Am Legend, is not the best film, but maybe that doesn't matter.

As I said, I love this story. The idea that a mindless monster (i.e. zombies, vampires, etc.) can actually be the victim of genocide is very interesting. I am continuously fascinated by stories that take what everyone deems to be hideous or dangerous, and turns that cliched stereotype on itself by victimizing what should be the enemy. Unfortunately this film doesn't explore that idea fully. Like the Will Smith I Am Legend, this is a missed opportunity to tell a far more interesting story.

In the film, the creatures are monsters, and very little is done to tell their side of things. Rather than explaining where they come from, and how much they hate and fear Neville for killing them off, they are merely reduced to "the bad guys." While I do feel that to some degree, that is ok, I wish they would explore their motives a bit more. Imagine how much more interesting it would be if you root for who you think is the hero, killing monsters and such, then only to discover he is committing mass murder of a new civilization. Granted the new civilization is a deformed and grotesque mirror of human life. But it still would provide a much more interesting film.

This movie was made in the early 70s, and you can tell. Everything from the beep bopping soundtrack to the insane camera zips and zooms exudes cheesy 70s cinema. And believe me, it is incredibly over the top cheesy. The villains looks like they were doused with baby powder and shoved in a hooded robe and wallah; BAD GUYS! It is so hard to take their plight seriously when they look so ridiculous and behave like a pack of buffoons. The main chicky (Cash) has a fro twice the size of her head, and I found myself laughing when they framed a close up of her, and the fro was taking up the majority of frame. It was a bit ridiculous.

About the only thing I love about this film is Charlton Heston. He's always portraying a character slightly larger than life, exaggerated, yet somehow still managing to create real human empathy for Neville. It is not difficult to create sympathy with the last man on earth; that story will always be ripe with sadness and tragedy, regardless of how you tell it. But Heston brings a weight to the material as only he could. Sure and defiant, full of vigor and spite, he commands the character in his most triumphant of moments. Even when he is captured and nearly killed, he never loses his swagger, and it is great fun to watch him play here.

I can allow for the fact that it is a 70s movie and there were certain limitations as to how good the effects can be, but at the end of the day, it has to be the story that stands the test of time, and I think it does. Even in all its corny, goofy, and outright silliest of moments, the film still tells an interesting story, that's what's important. I just wish they would have gone further with the creatures than merely making them the cardboard cut out bad guys.

Bottom Line:
A cheesy adaptation of great material still makes an interesting film, even though it is a missed opportunity to tell a much more interesting side of the story.

C+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Who ya gonna call... Jesus-busters?

Saw this today and thought it was too funny, and I just had to share...

(Click pic to enlarge)

Jesus doesn't look to happy. I guess the thought of sitting in that containment facility gives him the hibby jibbies. There's also this masterwork (after the break):

He'll probably just smite them. After all, he's not your garden variety ghost; he's THE Holy Ghost. Booyah! I got jokes.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 2, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: Chinatown

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Chinatown
Released: June 20, 1974
Directed by: Roman Polanski
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, John Huston

Plot in a Nutshell:
When private investigator, J.J. "Jake" Gittes (Nicholson), is asked to look into a supposedly philandering water tycoon, he begins to unravel a plot far more sinister and twisted than a simple case of infidelity.

What I thought:
I thought this was going to be a "heavy" film. The past few movies I've looked at have been pretty light (if not downright silly), it was time to look at something with a bit more weight, and I have to say that while my fear was substantiated, the film seemed to zip through its twists and surprises with very little weight indeed.

I'm not even going to try to dissect the plot here, it was a bit convoluted, however confusing it may have been, the pieces eventually fit, and the puzzle showed its face. It takes quite some time before you know it all, and even after it is over, some questions still linger (not a bad thing here). In this film, I think it is simply filled with an enormous amount of detail and life. When the lights come up you can imagine these characters existing. The back stories and history that is displayed is more than enough to get a sense of the characters and their situations.

I think at first glance, the film seems ominous and dark in nature, at least that's what I was thinking, having seen the poster and those iconic stills of a young Nicholson with that ridiculous bandage on his nose. Even though the ending may say otherwise, I didn't think it was nearly as depressing as I thought it would be. It does end on a sad note, and after so much time and effort that Jake has put into in the investigation, it may seem like it's a let down, but not in Chinatown. It has a staying power, and rather than depressing or saddening the viewer, it has a bit more of tragic feeling. You know the path the characters are on, with their actions and motivations, it isn't going to lead down a happy trail. It is clear that it won't end well, but what is important is that you share their journey.

Jack performs his character of a private eye without flaw, an the film never leaves his character (every scene has him in it). It is this point of view on the story and other characters that really shines throughout the film. As he uncovers clues and unravels plot, you see it with him. Even though things have been set up well before hand, you don't quite grab it until he does. This method of revealing the story bit by bit can be a tedious a slow process, but here, it never holds back the progression of the story. In fact with every revelation I was drawn further and further into the world.

I can't leave without pointing to the stylistic approach and the direction of Roman Polanski. This is a 35-year-old film, but I found myself marveling at it on more than one occasion. Some of the ways Roman chose to tell the story seem very unconventional to a 70s era film. His method of reveal, of surprise, and his way of telling the story bluntly, is simply fantastic. The scene where his nose is cut (by director Polanski in a cameo no less) comes at you so hard and so visceral, it doesn't seem like a movie at all.

It may wear the clothes of a classic film noir story, however I would argue that it is a more than dark alleys and moving shadows. It has those elements, and it is definitely a throwback to older crime stories, but I think to dismiss Chinatown as a simple black and white crime story would be to rob it of it's true colors.

Bottom Line:
Skillfully crafted by director Roman Polanski, and performed with near perfection by Nicholson, Chinatown is a great mystery that is a great experience to watch unfold.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content