A short musing on Trust

"I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you."

If you asked me years ago, “what is the most important thing in a relationship?” I would tell you to love your partner with all your heart, and make them aware of that love, in every day, every gesture, and in every word.

If you ask me now what I think that “most important thing” really is. I would tell you a simple word, trust.

It takes a great amount of effort and time to reach a level of truthfulness in any relationship. But if there is to be any growth in your feelings towards each other, trust is an absolute necessity. I daresay that love is tied to trust. I am not referring to that trepid initial infatuation or sexual attraction that may develop into a “love-like” feeling. It isn’t the superficial surface dwelling emotion that will provide the support through the toughest hardship or the greatest trial. Love is a deep-seeded state of being that is shared with a partner. This mutual feeling of life-long adoring affection is based,.. on trust.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

In Defense of Video Games

Here at work we are restricted as to where we can go on the Internet. Obviously the military doesn't want us looking up pornography, wasting time on YouTube, visiting extremist sites, or looking at pages on how to build pipe bombs. All of these things are blocked. You couldn't get to them if you wanted, not that I would want to anyway. But another item is thrown into this banned list, and it has me really frustrated. Any site that has any relation to the word "Games," is forbidden. I'm not talking just flash game sites (which I find to be perfectly acceptable as being banned), I'm talking about ANYTHING that has the slightest thing to do with the moniker "Games."

News sites, review sites, developer sites, forums, etc. All Blocked. An argument could be made that it is a time waster at a place that you shouldn't be wasting time with. And if you want to start down that path, I could list thousands of sites that I have no problem getting to that are as big if not bigger time wasters than anything related to games. News Sites like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, none are blocked. Movie news sites such as Variety, Hollywood reporter, Coming soon, Ain't it cool, none are blocked. The list continues: Celebrity Gossip sites, Facebook, Tech review sites, blog sites, recipe databases, etc. What is the whole of the Internet if not an enormous black hole of a time waste? So then why the specific hatred towards Gaming? I could detail my frustrations with this work computer restriction, but I think there is a larger issue present that needs to be explored.

Generally, in our culture, video games are looked down upon. They are kid's toys. That's why when a Mature rated game, a game designed and intended for Adults, gets so much press when an enraged parent finds out what their kid is really playing. That's why you have politicians (who do not really understand and appreciate gaming due to their inexperience), who try to pass restrictive laws regarding the distribution of games. The responsibilities of censoring children's entertainment intake, rests solely with the parent. But that is another post.

It could be simplified by saying that people just don't understand Video Games. The over 40 crowd, for the most part, don't understand the appeal, or why somebody would want to "rot their mind" on worthless video games. Older generations never had the technology at the age younger generations have it now. So it is natural that people don't understand it. But I really don't get why they receive so much hate from so many people. I believe many people are greatly misinformed. There is much to be said about the expanding and maturing industry of game design. So let me geek out a bit about this young, exciting field of entertainment.

Interactive storytelling. It's one thing to read a book and create images in your head. It's another experience to go and watch somebody's vision of a story. It is an entirely different experience to interact with characters, and write your own story in a world people have crafted specifically for your enjoyment. The level of detail that goes into some of these games is staggering. The gorgeous visuals that today's machines can create is simply stunning. I always enjoy taking a step into interactive worlds, exploring and having fun.

And a funny thing is beginning to happen within the game industry. The technology has gotten so great and so powerful, that developers are forced to throw more assets towards creating a game. More art, more textures, more code writing, more, more, more. Subsequently, costs are rising. A triple-A game released today costs quadruple it would have cost to produce a similar game 10 years ago. So what is happening? Since publishers and developer are throwing more money at the games they are releasing, the financial risk of failure becomes much more important. So what you are seeing in the games that are released is an extraordinary amount of time is being put into getting the game right. Getting a solid story, introducing great mechanics (how the game is played), ironing out all bugs, to deliver a satisfying experience and to ultimately craft a strong release that will earn money.

Video games have gotten so good in the past few years, that soon they will surpass film and television in their quality and level of polish. There are already games out now that I think are better experiences than a lot of movies I've seen. Some stories have genuinely touched me and have transcended the boundary that exists between the content and human emotion. Developers are constantly pushing the bounds of storytelling and emotion. There are several guys out there who are trying to get to the holy grail of gaming, making the gamer cry. It sounds silly to say, but it is a real goal for many developers to be able to create that game that impacts the player to the degree of physical emotional response. The games out now are slowly inching to that level, it is only a matter of time.

I hate the Wii. But it is hard not to admire what the Wii has been doing. People who don't play games are picking it up. There are stories of parents fighting the kids for play time, of nursing homes buying systems because they are so popular with the crowd. Finally, people are enjoying games in a much wider market. So many are experiencing them for the first time and really enjoying themselves that it is has become a very exciting time. Who would have thought that a simple innovation in controller design would be the feature that bridges the gap. It's a true phenomenon. But I'm still irritated with it. Mostly because I love good graphics and diverse stories. The Wii doesn't provide much of either. The games are all targeted to one audience, and the system is essentially a rebuild of a last generation system. But it is doing good, and I see it. I just hope those new to gaming through the Wii, will expand to better consoles and titles.

The full cultural penetration of gaming across all demographics, it is something that will take time. I foresee gaming will one day be looked at like any other entertainment medium. People will fondly reminisce about the "classics." I am sure that games will one day take their place amongst great pieces of art and film. But it still has a way to go for that to happen. I'm just so excited about being here at the beginning. The feeling I get when I think about the prospects of the future of gaming is similar to how I imagine some cinema goers felt in the 20s when films started taking off. And they still had Gone with the Wind, Citizen Kane, and The Godfather yet to be made. Imagine for a moment, the possibilities of where this field can go.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

100th Post!!! So why am I here?

This post marks the 100th post to the ole Observer! Yay!! Fireworks!! Explosions!! People flying through the Air!! YAY!!

So what's the point? Why am I here? I started this thing because my sister chided me into it. Pure and simple. The reason I keep coming back is because I enjoy writing. I love the idea of creation. I love to create something from nothing. Using only my head, a few fingers, and more than a little hard work and persistence, this site and my posts have lingered.

But the real reason I am here is not for the reader. I'm sorry to say that I don't write these things for you. I know how often I get visitors to my site, and I know they mostly come from the St. Louis Area, Connecticut, and Memphis. It's no secret that I don't have hundreds of readers, and that's ok. Like I said, I'm not here for you, I'm here for me.

You see, before this site came along, I would write very sporadically and often nothing meaningful. The little writing part of my brain just sat, unused. I worked on stories or scripts at various times, but never for any longer than a few hours every other week or so (if I was lucky). Now that I have this form of outlet and expression, that little writing corner of my brain has flourished. And it's made me realize that I love to write. I enjoy getting on here and putting thoughts to paper (or ones and zeros). It has been a great way to think about subjects that are close to my heart, and some that are nowhere near that personal.

I think you'll agree I hit a wide variety of topics. Things have been random. Things have been heated (even amongst myself) and things have been fun and a bit crazy. I've debated everything from girl scouts to absurd drive thru windows. I always try to be fair to my thoughts. I've done a bit of environmental hippie bashing and turned around and supported the current healthcare agenda. My topics range from one end of the spectrum to the other, and I love it.

And then there is my ongoing series, Classic Movie Monday. If there isn't anything going on, or if nothing is sparking my interest, there is always a classic movie to watch. This has been one of the real highlights for me in doing this whole web site thing. I've always had a love for film, but never really been thrilled with thought of watching the classics. I know there are hundreds if not thousands of important films to watch, and slowly I'm going to get to them all. As of this post, I have watched and reviewed 31 classic movies. Some I surprisingly hated, and others I found to be amazing. But every one is a film that I might never have watched otherwise, and I am better for it.

But the thing that makes doing this so great, is the moments like this. It makes me proud when I look back and see how much I've done in 10 months. I don't normally stroke myself, that's not my style, but I am very happy with the progress I've made. So now I pat myself on the back, *pat* *pat* and move on.

See you again after the next hundred!

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

The Limitations of Cost

I was watching From the Earth to the Moon a few months ago and it got me thinking about an interesting idea. What if there were no cost, no concept of money? Everybody worked for the benefit for each other, or were forced to work and develop due to outside influences? You may ask what does this have to do with From the Earth to the Moon?

From the Earth to the Moon is a miniseries that chronicles the space program from the moment Kennedy declared, "We choose to go to the moon," all the way through the Apollo program to the end of the Moon missions. As I was watching it, I began to think about how incredibly resourceful humans can be.

When Kennedy made that demand to put a man on the moon before the decade was out, our space program was a laughable joke. The Russians had just launched their Sputnik to much worldwide rejoicing and plenty of Washington headaches. It looked as though the Russians were going to beat us into outer space. This was something that the United States, in all its glorious, competitive spirit, could not allow. You can bet that when NASA got the news, they were a little bit overwhelmed. But you know what? They did it.

NASA pulled themselves together, set up a very ambitious plan and went about to make history. With plenty of setbacks and cost overruns they accomplished what was unaccomplishable: put a man on the moon. It is an amazing story about how it all came together, defying odds and inspiring a nation and the world. I recommend watching the series if you haven't seen it before.

But the thing that I realized was that NASA had, for the most part, a blank check. They were on a mission, mandated by a president that the country loved and missed, and nothing would stand in their way. So it got me thinking, what could we accomplish today if NASA was given similar circumstances? Those circumstances being an unlimited budget, rival international pressure, and a determined president's order. Now add our technology and knowledge of today, and you have a dangerous combination. We could build a Death Star!

But once I thought about this set of unusual circumstances, I began to apply it to every problem in our wold today. Everything is limited by cost and time. What if the expense were taken out of the equation? What if we had no concept of money, everybody working for the betterment of mankind? The only problem would then be time. So put a little pressure of an impending war, or ongoing war. Look at all the things to come out of two world wars. It is a fair argument to say that life would be very different today if Arch Duke Ferdinand wasn't assassinated, thus bringing about WWI and then WWII. Our lives today would be very different.

So what would this look like? What would a society that had no monetary value and a little bit of competition look like? I don't think it'd be all that great to be honest. The concept almost sounds like communism. But I see it more like a perfectly functioning utopia, everybody works for each other and for the betterment of man. Wow, that does sound communist.

In short I find that it would never work. Money or trade is a necessary part of society and culture. I simply find it fascinating to think of the possibilities if you simply took away a cost.

Think about the medical field. No longer limited by budgets and grants, they could throw all their resources into the hat to find cures and advance medicine. Or what about our infrastructure? How about those fuel economic cars? Think of the advances we could make if people weren't holding back.

And I return to space. If NASA had no budget limitations, we could be building that ship to go to Mars. We could be building that elevator to ferry equipment out of the atmosphere. The ideas are there. The science is there. All that is missing is oodles and oodles of cash, or an organization that doesn't need it.

It may sound a little dark, but I almost feel that a large scale war is needed to jump-start our ailing system. If the need were present and pushing, we could accomplish anything. All we have to do is put forth the effort, and put aside the cost.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Lingering in Misery

Everybody's seen this guy already. He opened fire in a fitness center, killed 4 people, including himself. If you're not in the know, go here, here, or here.

Very sad. But, he kept a small online diary. This has been all over the news, so I'm not going into details. Instead I wanted to get some thoughts out about why this guy did this.

I just finished reading the entire diary. Yeah, I was a little curious. I think this is an excellent opportunity to try and understand the motivations behind wanting to hurt and kill people. My initial impression after pouring through the few entries, is one of sadness, and almost sympathy. I know the guy has done something very hateful and completely uncaring, but his words suggest a very tortured soul. A soul who has just never had things line up for him.

He goes on to describe what the media had labeled "a hatred for women." I don't think that's very accurate. He clearly states at several points that he has longed for a companion, that he has not wanted to be alone. But throughout his life he has not been successful. He states that he had dated and been with women, but for whatever reason or another it never worked out.

Unfortunately it is incredibly difficult to get an exact view on this guy's situation. We don't know why people never seemed to get along with him. He does state at several points that people think of him as a "nice guy." But you also get the impression that his burden of childhood is clearly shown on his face. Someone made the comment if he had liked high school, they, thinking he had been bullied around. So obviously people have been able to see his torment, but why nobody ever stepped across that line to help him is a mystery. Who's to say he didn't ward them off somehow?

The thing I am trying to get at is this man lived and wallowed in his own misery. He seemed to embrace it as the way things HAD to be. He felt that he HAD to go into that gym and fire shots into a crowd, and take his own life. People can take a very valuable (and costly) lesson from this. I know I will be taking a lesson from this.

The reason why I said before that I almost felt sympathy with the man, is that I can understand his position. I can understand his frustration with social interactions. I can understand his broken childhood. I can understand the idea of being a "nice guy" that gets nothing and goes nowhere. For those reasons I feel bad for the guy. But the thing I can't understand is obviously why he felt he had to go and kill. And that's going to be the thing people will debate endlessly.

I get his turmoil. I don't get the need to murder. But the lesson to take is to keep an eye out for your fellow man. Be mindful of people, and not in a paranoid tattle-tell way. People could use the most help before they act. Because like in this case, there might not be another chance.

And the other thing to take away is about the dangers of stewing in your own misery. I've been guilty of being happy in misery. It sounds weird and contradictory, but it is a genuine feeling. Life is filled with highs and lows. Both are vital parts of a human life. They are what makes us unique and world wise. But it is important to not dwell in the lows, lingering in misery. Get help. Seek interaction. Even if you don't feel the need, meet people, have friends. Don't dwell?

Here's the link to his site.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

The Hanks Appeal to the Elderly

There is a small phenomenon that has been coursing its way over the years. It goes unnoticed by all. A silent beast lurking, until just the right moment to strike. A pandemic that sweeps the nation and empties the living room of many a senior citizen.

The release of a new Tom Hanks movie.

(Cue dramatic reveal music) Dun, dun, DUUUUUUNNNNNNNN!!!

If you think I am crazy, or if you call me a liar, then let me change your mind with a few paragraphs and sentences. If I don't blow your mind, than oh well. Your mind is invulnerable to being blown to smithereens by sheer awesomeness.

Enough of that. I noticed the "Hanks Appeal to the Elderly" when I was but a lowly theater employee back in 1999. A film had just been released to universal acclaim starring non other than Mr. Tom Hanks: The Green Mile. And as I worked during its run at our theater, I noticed an unusual occurrence. That was that an excessive amount of elderly people were in the audience. I noticed this, because of all the demographics, they are the ones who tend to stay sitting the longest in a theater. If you don't believe me, just work at a theater for three years as an usher and you'll understand what I mean.

It never fails, every time we would go to clean a theater, there would invariably be that one person who likes to sit and wait til the last credit rolls. I AM that person (gotta respect the film by staying, unless its a crapper). But senior citizens will stay more than the average film goer. Why? I have no idea, but they do. So when the Green Mile was playing, we would always have to wait til the credits were completely over because there were SOOOOO many elderly, you couldn't work around them as you could normally on other shows.

So after every showing of The Green Mile, we would have to stand in the back of the theater, waiting for everybody to leave so we could clean and move on to the next theater. This may not sound so bad, except for the fact that on a busy weekend, you need to be in and out of those theaters quick, so as not to get too backed up.

At the time, I attributed the large amount of senior citizens to the nature of the movie. But then the next year, the same elderly flocking occurred again, on Cast Away. "Hmmm, that's odd," I'd tell myself. "The last time I saw this phenomenon was on Green Mile. I wonder if it has anything to do with Tom Hanks?" I still wasn't sure at this point what exactly was causing it. It wasn't until summer of '02, when Road to Perdition came out, that I made the case for "The Hanks Appeal to the Elderly."

From then on, every single Tom Hanks movie I go to see, the theater is filled with Senior Citizens. What is it about Tom Hanks that appeals to so many elderly? And then I realize what it is? It's the women dragging the men. I have noticed an unusually disproportionate ratio of women to men. Maybe it's that Tom Hanks is such a good wholesome fella, that every Grandmother wants as a son or a grandson. I have no idea. Why does this phenomenon exist? And furthermore, how much of a loser am I for coming up with such a baffling conspiracy theory?

I can almost attribute it to the types of movies and roles Tom is in. However, Ladykillers still had a large 55+ demographic. But i think most of us were duped by that movie anyway, so we'll call it square. Then there was Road to Perdition in which the good boy Tom Hanks plays a murdering Mobster. So I'm not sure if is entirely his roles that brings in the senior folks. I think the strongest argument I have for the reason why this happens, lies in the film Forrest Gump. I think that this film won over so many hearts of so many people, that people have a strong connection with him.

I don't think the elderly go to the cinema often anymore. Most of today's movies are loud, obnoxious, and raunchy. But when the senior folk do come out, they want it to be a good film. They want to not waste their money. And they know they like Tom Hanks, so consistently you'll find he draws in that demographic more than anybody else.

For a while I felt the "Hanks Appeal" had waned, that is until today, when I saw Angels and Demons. Wouldn't you know it, 90% of that audience was carrying an AARP card, and got in for two dollars cheaper than I. Son of a gun.

So don't be fooled, The "Hanks Appeal to the Elderly" does exist. You are warned. Though i don't know what you'd do about it. It's just an oddity that I've noticed over the years of film going. Still think I'm crazy? Probably right.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Politically Correct Racism

Disclaimer: In the following post, I use words that could be construed as offensive. However, it is my intent only to explore why these words rile so many people up.

Something I realized the other day was our over-use of a term known as African-American. I have been so well trained in my upbringing to not use the term Black, but instead use the Politically Correct, African-American.

I'm not one to be PC, in fact I try not to. But I realized that this term is not a very good one to use. Mainly because it doesn't translate across our borders. Go north to Canada, you wouldn't call a Black man, African-American. You'd get a funny look and a Pro-Canadian spiel (and nobody wants that, trust me). So what do you use when referring to somebody outside our country who is of darker skin?

Again I go back to Black. People aren't really very black. It's more of a brown. We could go around calling people brownies, but something tells me we'd have a new N-word, only it would be called the B-word. Back in the day, people would call black people Negros. And this wasn't considered derogatory at all. In fact Black people embraced this term. It was used to identify a whole culture of people. Organizations were named using Negro in the title. But we don't use it hardly anymore. Why?

Simply put, I really think Negro is just too close to Nigger. And if I referred to a black man as Negro, he'd probably have some choice words to say to me. As he should, If I offend anyone, they should tell me. If I call a fellow white man a cracker and he draws offense, I should hear about it. However most crackers -er, white people wouldn't care.

So what's the deal? You're probably asking, "What's he going on about?" I am talking about the absurdity of the idea of offense and right. As well as a little P.C. B.S. And yes, being politically correct is some mad bullshit.

Our society has had a troubled past, in terms of race. We are finally getting over years of angst and turmoil. The black community has been unjustly treated in our past. And not our distant past Our relative recent history is littered with examples of black hatred. I use the term littered, however it is generally a few southern states that are the primary source of the problems.

The ancestry of of a Southern rebel is a bitch of a thing to cast aside. There was some great hurt in the south when they lost the civil war. According to them they were in the right. History and our society now views them as wrong, but at the time they were in the know and in the green. As far as they were concerned, the south needed slaves.

When they lost, they took all that hatred and resentment and had to put it somewhere, so it landed on the newly freed slaves. Thus the beginnings of the deeply divided racial lines in the American south. I'm not defending bigots, just trying to explore the origins of this stuff in modern day America.

OK, so then the Black community begins to speak up. They stop buses, hold marches, give dreamy speeches. They begin to say "No More!" And the rest of the country listened. It took a while, but eventually our society turned itself into one that was so fearful of hurting anybody's feelings that the notion of being politically correct began to emerge.

What is politically correct? Let's go to good ole webster:

Conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

Hmmm. So basically, don't offend ANYONE. In this day and age, I find that impossible, but ok we'll go with it.

So you essentially have an entire race of people that have just gotten over their long history of abuse and hatred, add that to an overly sensitive nation of lightweights, and you get: a whole lot of absolute wasted energy at being polite, i.e. B.S.

So we get back to it. What exactly do we call the African-originating people of America. African-American sounds good, right? Sure, i suppose. I'd find it a little insulting if I were a black man. I'm sure there are more than a few people out there who resent the term. To me African-American is just wrong.

It is a term that categorizes an entire history of people into one thing. I would personally hate being pigeonholed into one category. In fact I do. I don' think of myself as white. Nor do I even consider myself and English American. I am simply, an American. Why does a term exist, in my opinion, to bring down a whole group of people to being African. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want that?

I suppose if I were a betting man, that African-Americans like the term because it shows a unity of their race of people. That we are all deriving from Africa, the mother Continent. Add to it the fact that African American lineage is so muddied by years of slavery in the south, and you have no choice but to group everybody in the same category. I however find it to be a little dumb...

But I'm beginning to realize something even greater. The whole notion of black and white, is in itself racist. We should all just be people. We are Americans, or we are Canadians, or Europeans. Hell, we are Earthlings!!! Oh God, can you imagine the chaos in our non-offending, politically correct way of talking when the Vogons from the planet Vogsphere enter our society. And we wouldn't want to EVER offend them, because of course if we did, they could blow our whole planet away to make room for a new hyperspace expressway. (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference to the uninitiated)

Bottom line that I've been trying to get to in this all too long post is this: Drop the tip-toey non-offending speak, and look at people not as black/white/brown/purple but as people. Because that's what we are, and that is the ultimate solution to racism.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

"Pull forward please." What? Why?

Here's the deal, go to a fast food drive through. Order some grub. Pull up to the window. Pay your money, get your drink. Attendant asks you to pull forward, "We'll bring your stuff out."

This happens because they don't want to hold up the people behind you, and they don't want their counters to say somebody was at the window for 5 minutes while your french fries are cooking. I am sometimes happy about this, cause I get some nice hot fries. But lately it has come to my attention that this whole pull forward business is a bit ridiculous.

First off the drive thru is designed and built to be all about speed. If your fries aren't ready then that's a problem with the kitchen. They need to have some fries ready to go. Everything needs to be ready to go, so that all you do is throw it into a bag and wallah. This is the reason they have a counter inside, so that they are accountable for how many cars can get through the line during lunch.

Secondly if there is something slow in the kitchen, odds are the person behind me is going to have to wait too. So what are we solving here by moving somebody forward? So they can get another order in the system so that it can clog up even more?! That sounds ridiculous.

And lastly you're slowing things down even further when your attendants have to run ten orders out to the cars piled up in the lot. They are taking time to do run around, as opposed to simply waiting and handing things out that nice, little, bullet-proof window. Again, drive thru is designed to use that little window.

The point of the counter is to demonstrate to management how efficient their drive thru's are. By making you pull forward they are cheating their timers. They are cheating their jobs, making it look like they had a run of people go though 30 secs a piece when in actuality you had five very irritated people waiting in the parking lot for their food. That is not representing the effieciency of the drive thru at all. It is cheating. Pure out and out cheating, and the customer never knows it is happening.

This whole thing started a few weeks ago in San Diego. We went to Wendy's, three orders of spicy chicken sandwiches. We paid, got our drinks and were asked to pull forward. Pulled thru the drive, and because of the design of the drive thru, no car that was behind me could get out unless I pulled out of the drive thru. So I pulled out and was going to park, only this Wendy's sat in the middle of a huge shopping center. There wasn't a single parking spot, and about 15 cars trying to find one. So I pulled around and parked behind the handicapped spot, cause I figured they would be quick.

The guy who was behind me in the line of cars, came out of the thru shortly after I did, and he had been asked the same thing. So he circled around and parked behind me. At this point I am beginning to think this whole idea of pulling forward is a bit flawed. And the three of us were getting very irate. Then the handicapped people came out of the Wendy's and wanted to leave, so I had to move back, causing the guy behind me to move back as well, causing a traffic jam in the parking lot.

Finally, after what seemed like ten minutes, and after the handicapped party had left, our food came out. But I had to signal the attendant as to where I was parked (God forbid they should keep track of me and my order, again, what a drive thru is designed for). She came over and I told her what we ordered and she handed us the sack of Wendy's goodness.

The funny thing is, not a single car came out of the drive thru after the guy behind me did. So what on Earth is the point of this whole thing? Nobody got out of there any earlier than I did, because everybody was waiting for the same thing. So this whole idea of pulling forward to keep the line moving is a bit retarded in my opinion.

And then to top off this whole story, we were again getting food at a Wendy's this past weekend. And you know what, they asked me to pull forward. Here's the hysterical part, there was nobody behind me. And as I pulled forward and waited for them to bring out my food, nobody EVER came in line behind me. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS?!?!?! ARRRGHHH!!!

Maybe it's just Wendy's. Jack in the box does this also, but at least they have parking spots reserved for drive thru. I think next time somebody asks me to pull forward, I will just say "No thanks, I can wait here." I will let their counters get screwed up, because it will accurately show that they are lacking at service.

And if you want it to get any scarier, apparently this an arrestable offense in Florida. An elderly lady refused to pull forward and the cops arrested her. Read it here.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

I am concerned.

What I am seeing more and more is a type of attack on people that sickens me. It is something that I find incredibly frustrating and I think it is something that people need to recognize.

There are a few hot button issues for me that are floating around now. Two big ones are gay marriage and global warming. I have written about them both many times before on this site. I don't think I need to state why I feel the way I do. But the thing I am concerned about is the escalation of attacks against people who are opposed to these issues. 20 years ago if you said you were against gays getting married, you would have a debate on your hands. Sides would be discussed. It may get heated, but in the end, opinions were respected.

Today in our environment of blogs, twitters, and general expansion of public whining on the Internet, it has ceased to be an opinion and become bigoted. There are people who will call me names for what I believe. Miss California is currently being chastised across the Internet for her belief on marriage. People are basically holding her to this image of an ignorant racist.

Why can't people respect other people's opinions. I respect what other people have to say about hot button issues. I will listen to their views and I will still hold my opinion. Why can't we receive the same treatment. Oh that's right, it's unconstitutional and I am ashamed. Well, I disagree.

But my point is not what has been said or what people are currently saying. My point is why is it that because I have a different opinion I have become this monster that is going to end the world. Because I have faith in our planet to heal itself, to correct it's problems, and because I find that the human race is a pretty insignificant dot on the size of our planet, I am suddenly thrust aside by my own government. My own president is saying now is not the time for debate, it is the time for action. Well hooray to him, but there is always room for debate. There is always room to decide what we are going to do before we simply plunge head first into that rock that sits just below the surface of the water.

My concern is that today we are jumping to conclusions, we are mowing over people's beliefs because a few loud celebrities and bloggers do not respect other people's opinions. Not only do they not respect others, they don't even acknowledge them.

If I ever hear somebody tell me to shut up because I have a difference of opinion, stand by.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

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

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

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

I buy Girls Scout cookies from Girl Scouts!

Because they're made from real Girl Scouts!

The title sums it up. I buy Girl Scout cookies from Girl Scouts. I don't buy them from their parents peddling their daughter's products at work. Do people really coddle their kids this much these days? Or are kids just too damn lazy to go out and peddle themselves?

This all started last week, when a mysterious piece of paper showed up in the office. A piece of paper that was a sign up for girl scout cookies. Sign your name, what you want, and the cookies will be brought in to work in March. Wah-lah! I scoffed at the mere existence of such a list. "How impersonal!" I said to myself. If this parent was trying to sell their kid's cookies, they weren't doing a very good job at it. At least have the cajones to ask me in person.

Well eventually they did ask me in person, and my response was a polite "No, thank you." What I should have said was "Why on God's green earth would I buy a GIRL SCOUT cookie from what is clearly, a non Girl Scout?!"

Now, I actually like this person very much, and she has on many occasions asked me to buy stuff to support her endeavors, which I have been perfectly ok with. But selling your kid's cookies for them? Nah-ah. I won’t support that.

I like it when I go to Wal-mart, or the grocery store, and a troop of scouts has a table set up outside stacked with cookies (I like instant gratification). As I make my way into the store, a girl asks if I'd like to buy a box. 100% of the time, I will say yes, and fork over my hard earned 20 bucks to support the Girl Scouts of America (then I will pig out on frozen thin mints for a week).

So are the kids at fault here? Do they ask Mommy and Daddy to see if they can sell cookies at work? More than likely, yes. I have been there, selling fundraiser stuff. And I do distinctly remember asking if my Mom could sell some stuff at work. So call me a hypocrite. I actually think I grew up and formed an opinion, but whatever. Kids want to be the best, they see an opportunity in their parent's workplace. But where'd they get that idea from? My guess is the Girl Scouts of America.

Picture it: You are a Girl Scout. You just joined. You are excited to sell some cookies. You sit down with your scout masters (whatever they are called), and they lay out the plan for you to sell cookies. They offer suggestions to help sell them, tips and advice. And among the many ideas they have to sell the cookies and make money is to give a form to your parents and get them to sell some at work. Obviously I am not, nor have ever been a girl scout, but you don't need a degree in Rocket Surgery to know they push the kids and the parents into selling them at work.

So what do you know? It's the association itself creating this tomfoolery. The girls are blameless, they're children, they just want to sell the most so they can take that canoe trip or whatever. It is the parents and the organization that should know better.

My point is that the cookies are meant to be sold by children, to support a children's organization. I understand you want to help your kids, and get them that prize for selling the most cookies. It is a natural thing to want to do that, but this is something I will mark the line on very clearly:

Girls in the girl scouts, sell Girl Scout cookies. Period.

That being said, I can't wait to get my hand on some boxes, they are soooooo good.

This is the story that started this.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

The Deification of Obama

"Obama raises his hand, lifts a nation."

That is a slogan that is being printed and sold by CNN. It disturbs me that he is becoming akin to Moses. Seriously, replace Obama with Moses, and it sound as though you were speaking about a nation of Jews in the old Testament. That article above makes mention that these shirts prove news-media is propaganda. But that is for another post on another day.

But it isn't just slogans printed on t-shirts. What would you say if I told you, that schools and streets were already being changed to reflect our new President. Welcome to Barack Obama Elementary School! So says this article.

And who could forget this campaign poster;

What is happening to this mere-mortal figure named Barrack Obama? Furthermore, why is this happening to someone who has been in office for a measly 10 days!?!?

Something I have noticed since Obama won the primaries against Hillary in 2008. As his campaign ramped up towards the election, and when he won the presidency, a fervor has increasingly gripped much of America. Right now, across the nation, a seemingly invincible Obama, has begun to transcend into a god-like mythic quality. Before he has even signed a bill into law, or introduced legislation, we get a poster like this:

"It's the Patron Saint Obama, here to save us from the wicked Bush Administration."

I take great offense in an image such as this. To compare the man, our new president to a Christ-like figure, is absolutely unthinkable and disrespectful. And even more so because he has yet to hold the office for two weeks.

My question is simple, how has this happened? How has a simple man been transformed into such a figure of hope and promise? And why on earth do we have things like the pictures and slogan above, when all the man has done, thus far, is talk a big talk. I sense so much empty promise with these images that it can only lead to disappointment. There simply is no where else to go. He can go no higher in people's eyes, the only place to go is down.

Can this man do wrong?

I think so. He is after all only a man. He will make mistakes, and he will make judgements that I disagree with. That is the life of a President. No president will ever make everybody happy. But I do feel that he is going to shake things up, in a good way. I am all for cutting back on excessive pay and bonuses. But I don't think you can spend your way out of a financial hole, which is exactly what he is doing.

But as far as the 'Deity' goes, as time goes on, I can only hope that this image of a god-man Obama, will come back down to earth. Because if it doesn't, all those disillusioned people who have so much hope pinned on him, will be absolutely heartbroken and betrayed when he disappoints them.

Remember, no President makes everyone happy. It is merely a matter of time before mistakes are made, opinions reversed, and dissatisfaction set in. But I suppose my point of this is: let his record speak for him. Don't let yourself be filled with a false promise of hope and change when you have yet to see it. Anybody can talk, it takes a true leader to ACT on their strong words and make those tough decisions.

All I am saying is let us wait and see, before we make him akin to Jesus.

Click the photo for the story on this sculpture.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Don't ask, Don't tell... apparently don't fly.

The news item this week is that Obama will do away with the Military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. This is a huge issue that I think is one of many examples of why I am not happy with the incoming administration.

My opinions aside, I will try my best to illustrate both the pros and cons of this policy, in an interesting, and hopefully entertaining way. What follows in this post, is a serious debate attempt on this issue. There is however a catch; I am going to play both sides, portraying the devil's advocate if you will.

A note: I am going to be exaggerating both sides, so be warned, for here, mania ensues...

-- DEBATE BEGINS --

-I think that the "Don't ask don't tell" policy is essential to good working order and discipline in the military. It protects Gay members from fear of harassment and the possibility of hate crimes-

-um let me just interrupt here, that is BS. Do women in the military face any harassment or suffer any more crime against them as a result of them simply being in the military. The answer is no. And the people who do harass and do commit crimes are punished appropriately.

-Ah yes but the problem is that in society there are clear lines dividing men and women. It is based mostly on a physical attribute, that being the male or female reproductive organs. We have separate bathrooms, we have separate clothing stores, accessories etc. The problem is that line becomes blurred when it is based on sexual attraction. I for one do not want to be in the shower with an openly gay man. It is uncomfortable. It would be the same as if a woman were to shower with a group of men or a man showering with a group of women. It isn't right.

-yes, but you said that the separation is based on physical, not the mental.

-I did, however, there are gays that roam around saying they are a man trapped in a woman's body or vice versa. I do not want that in my berthing. I am not homosexual, I do not want somebody else's sexual orientation forced on me.

-I see, so you discriminate against people, you probably voted for prop 8 too.

-Well yes, but that isn't the issue here.

-No the issue is a fundamental right as a human being, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation, to be regarded in society as equal to all, you don't get that in the military currently with this policy.

-Well, you see, you actually do. The brilliance of this policy is that you can be gay, you can live the gay lifestyle, however when in a professional capacity, you must refrain from being gay.

-So you're saying you must not be gay at work. Are you listening to yourself? How can you not be gay at work? It isn't like you are macking on your coworkers if you are straight. What is private and at home stays at home, rarely does it interact with the workplace, and if it does, there are rules against that for straight people. It's called fraternization.

-As I have said, the current policy doesn't discriminate. You can be gay, you just can't be gay at work.

-Oh please! Everybody knows who is Gay. Everybody knows who is doing who. The only thing that isn't told in the military is told in writing, on the records. Leadership is aware of who is openly gay, they choose to turn a blind eye, thus negating the reason for a silly policy that discriminates against people.

-OK I think we are just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

-maybe, and you ARE crazy Todhunter, but I think it is the new century, it is a new time. Obama has been elected and now is the time for CHANGE. It is time to do away with this archaic rule that really accomplishes nothing except to discriminate against homosexuals and make people like yourself feel better because you don't have to deal with gays.

-Maybe that is right. But then we get down to my fundamental beliefs on Homosexuality. And I think it is wrong. It is not what was intended when we were created and it is wrong. But that is just my opinion. I think that in the military you are forced to give up certain rights to protect everyone else's. Is it so much to ask, that if you are gay, keep it to yourself. That is the way it should be. The don't ask don't tell policy does not impede on your privacy. It doesn't impede on rights. Because in the military there are many rights that you don't have. Is it so much to ask that gays remain in the closet in a professional manner when enlisted in the service?

-- END OF DEBATE --

And there you have it, a lively debate between myself and myself. Being in the military, this may affect me, that is if Obama decides to tear down this policy. I honestly do not think there is anything wrong with the policy as is. I will admit it is a wishy-washy way to deal with a problem, but so what. Are gays really that impacted by this policy?

It is true that people do know who is gay and who isn't. They used to have little get togethers on the mess decks underway. Everybody knew. Hell, I even had a cake made for my birthday because the cook liked me. And to be honest, when I found out about that, I was incredibly uncomfortable. It grossed me out. But thankfully I didn't have to deal with him everyday, as I would have if I were working with an openly gay man.

My point comes down to this... I don't think it is right. And I do not want to be hit on, looked at, or even have a cake baked for me. Nor do I want to be in the head taking a shower and have a gay man present. I DO NOT WANT IT!

I was having a conversation with a gentleman at work about this issue. I expressed my discomfort at the possibility of rooming with a gay man, or sleeping in the rack below a gay man. And he told me "Tough! We're in a new world now. Get used to it." And what am I supposed to say to such a dogmatic over-idealized point of view? When people tell me it's their way or the highway, that is when intelligent debate stops and zealous passion overcomes.

And if that is what I have to look forward to in the next 4 years, God help me.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

The gimmick of 3D

I saw Bolt over the weekend, in 3D. And as a quick review I will say it was one of the best Disney films in ages (excluding the Pixar made ones). Great funny family flick. Highly recommend it. But was the 3D great? While it was cool, it didn't stand out as something that can't be missed.

3D is the newest craze crafted by the studios to get people back in the theater. Or realD, or Tru-D, or blast-yo-eyes-out-ya-head-D. If you didn't know that the movies are in trouble, you're living under a rock or you're one of the people killing the film industry by staying home.

People like DVDs, they like watching movies at home. Who doesn't? You can curl up comfortably in your own house and watch the latest flick in your comfypants (or no pants at all if it suits you). But because the window between initial theatrical release and the DVD release has gotten so small, many people have begun to get the mentality of "I'll just wait for the DVD."

So now that people aren't flocking to the theaters, the studios must come up with something that nobody can get at home. And as of right now that thing they are focusing on is 3D. I find it terribly ironic considering the same plan of attack was used against TV in the 50s. Granted today's tech allows for a much better viewing experience on today's 3D screens. Gone are the cardboard red and blue sunglasses. Now you get plastic, polarized ultra-cool 3D shades. And the difference is clearly noticeable.

However cool the tech is, today's 3D offerings are awful. They use the third dimension as a cheap gimmick, throwing things at the camera in an attempt to "draw" you in to the flick. I groan every time something jumps out at me. It is a sad and blatant attempt to show off the "cool factor" of the 3rd dimension. What filmmakers don't realize is that we live in 3d everyday. I walk around and I can have things pop out at me at anytime. I'm not looking for things to poke me in the eye, I'm just saying that no amount of 3D "coolness" is better than my own eyes in the real world. The movie doesn't need to show me I'm watching 3D, it just needs to let it be a part of the story. When you show me something that I wouldn't see in the real world, then it becomes truly interesting.

But the notion of taking you to places where you see things you haven't before, that's a theme that is as old as movies themselves, and it is what I feel is the true power of cinema. Simply slapping a third dimension onto crap doesn't make it any better. It is still crap. And sadly, every 3d movie I have seen so far just doesn't do it for me. Beowulf was a kick ass movie, but the third dimension didn't really do anything for me. It has a coolness factor, but it wasn't any different than had I seen it in 2d. The 3d drew way to much attention to itself. Too many times I could see the filmmakers say "Oooo, look out there, we just popped a dragon in your face, look you are impressed at our amazing new technology." And I'm not.

One day, when a filmmaker decides to not use 3d as a cheap little addition to a movie, and give me something that is genuinely compelling and thought-provoking that could never have been achieved without the use of 3D, THAT is when I think 3D will have a place.

As of right now, I don't think that film exists. Many people say it's James Cameron's upcoming Avatar, a sci-fi epic. Nerds are praising the film (mind you before a single frame of it is seen by anyone) as the greatest 3D film ever!!! I'm just not buying it. But I think if anybody has a shot at making 3D work, It would be him. If Cameron can't pull me into that world, impress me with the story and the characters, while simultaneously & seamlessly integrating that third dimension, he will have failed.

What I think studios ought to be doing, instead of trying to cram 3D crap down our throat, is focus on IMAX. This summer, The Dark Knight was released in IMAX. What made it different than other theatrical film released on IMAX, was that certain scenes were shot with IMAX cameras, giving the viewer an incredible amount of clarity and detail that isn't found in other movies. Chris Nolan had the right idea when he made the decision to do that, because 3D can be replicated in a home environment, a 5-story-tall screen sitting in your face can't. That is the true next-gen movie-going experience..

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is taking a page out of the Nolan book as certain action scenes were filmed in the large format. I can't wait. Avatar, not so much.

*Note: The 50s saw two main innovations to the cinema experience (as a response to tv), 3D and widescreen. Which do you think has had a bigger impact over the years? Here's a hint, it's the one with the bigger screen. Time will tell.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Why do preteen girls fawn?

Don't tell me you don't know what I'm talking about here! Every single year, there seems to be something that little girls just swoon for en masse. The current one that I am discovering is a crazy obsession with everything Twilight.

Twilight is a book telling the tale of a mortal teen girl who discovers a boy who just so happens to be a vampire. They fall in love but he's a vampire and she's a human, yada yada yada... yawn. Well anyway, this book is apparently beloved by girls (and their Moms) everywhere and the movie is being released today. But rather than talk about this silly movie, I thought I would take my time and talk a little about why it is that girls do this massive crazy obsession about things.

I think the clearest example would be Titanic. The girls loved that movie (and Leo, much to his dislike), so much that they watched it, and watched it and rewatched it, and watched it, and watched it again. They sent it into astronomical, record box office numbers. It didn't hurt that the movie was pretty good, and yes, I will put it into public record that I enjoyed that flick. I saw it 4 times I believe. But before you start calling me a hypocrite, let me continue because the issue runs deeper than simply seeing a movie many times. I see them multiple times because I am fascinated with the filmmaking process. The girls see it to satisfy something else…

The pre-pubescent girl craze thing is not just limited to films. Boy Bands were a recent fad that thank God died away. But now they swoon over celebs like Hannah Montana, Zac Efron, and now the star of Twilight, Robert Pattinson. What is it that causes these girls to melt and scream and cry en masse? I think the issue is much more spread than simply being about young teenage girls. Adults are capable of doing the same thing.

I have come to the conclusion that it is all about the celebrity. Our society and pop culture elevates these mortal men and women so high, that us normal folk look up and admire them to ridiculous levels. And an even bigger problem than just our looking up to them, we have corporations that sell us these people. Disney is the guiltiest. I can't see myself ever buying a High School Musical lunchbox or pajamas, but they exist. Or how about Hanna Montana's clothing line?

I have no problems with commercializing a product, but to commercialize and make money off a person's name, it kind of disturbs me. J.Lo's got a perfume line. P.Diddy has clothes to sell you. And don't get me going on the teen empire of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. It sickens me that people produce this crap, but it sickens me even more that people actually BUY IT!! ARGH!!!

But anyway… getting back to the original topic... Why do girls, or people in general, fawn over the "celeb"? I believe it has something to do with the way we develop as young children. We tend to look up at the popular girls and boys, trying to love them, so maybe we'll be accepted. It's a very shallow way to be IMHO, and while I don't think that necessarily explains the celebrity, it is something that happens when you want to be accepted in a group. But why try to be accepted? Why do we humans want to be loved by others? Simply put... it makes us feel good.

But I think more so than what others think, you have to love yourself, and most importantly be true to that person. And if you are true to yourself, why would you need to be like others, like that "celeb?" Find who you are. That’s important, not what others think.

And this celeb craze is becoming a pandemic that I don't think people recognize. And that's the most dangerous kind.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Am I a Monkey?

So I was having a conversation with a fellow employee of the US Navy today, and he was telling me that my job was easy, that a monkey could do what I do. Initially I argued with him since I took great offense at his remark. I told him how what I do is important and at times can be quite a bit difficult, especially to those who don't know how to do it.

So what is it that I do? Well I am a Mass communications Specialist in the United States Navy. I am stationed with a squadron named VX-9 out of Ridgecrest CA. What I do for the squadron is provide support to the Squadron via Printing, Graphic Design, and Photographic services. Does that sound easy? Well let me tell you a secret... It is.

What I do here at the squadron is very menial and often unexciting:

• Somebody needs a 100 copies of a 50 page document. Put document in machine, type 100, and press go. Boom! Done.
• Somebody needs a photo of a plane because they are designing a model and need a picture of the Jet's Paint scheme. Go downstairs in to the hangar, point camera, focus, shoot, download and burn. Boom! Done.
• Somebody needs a poster to say "What've you done for the Fleet Today?" Open a cool photo, slap on some text and Boom! Done. Actually... that's not easy. And point of Fact graphics work is a little challenging if you don't know what you're doing.

Ok so with the exception of graphics the majority of the work I do here is not all that exciting or difficult to learn. But all that aside, as an MC in the military, I am required to know a great deal of information. I have attended 4 different multimedia schools as part of my training in the military. I am an accomplished video shooter/editor, and over the 6 years in the military I have created some things I am very proud of. But is that easy? Not really.

Going out and finding a story to shoot is difficult. Shooting the story, while I may be used to it, can be a challenge. And then there is the editing, the writing of the script, and add a few finishing touches and Boom! But VX-9 doesn't really care about Video pieces, so it's a moot point here.

So where does this issue rest? I honestly feel that I am not being challenged at work. We aren't required to do very much here. And since it is a shore duty, and after serving on a very hardworking aircraft carrier for 4.5 years, I am not really looking for the challenge. I am just coasting along.

When it's spelled out like that, it kind of makes me nervous. How can I afford to take a break now, when I need to be planning and preparing for a very big step within the next 2 years? How did I get like this? Maybe I am the monkey after all.

Guess I'll have to fix that, or just go get another banana.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content