*Upstate New York is weird. Temperatures this week are in the 80's. Because it was cold enough to snow just a month ago, it feels like it's over 100 here.
*People who write love songs enjoy referencing Romeo and Juliet. Did these people ever, you know...watch the play??? Romeo and Juliet don't work out too well as couple. Sure, they spout lots of magnificent poetic oratory, but they end up unnecessarily and prematurely dead. Interesting thing, to me anyway, is that the play isn't about the outcome of their relationship. The prologue tells us they're going to die. The point of the story is that it takes the deaths of four teenagers (Mercutio, Tybalt, Romeo, and Juliet, in that order) to convince their families to get over whatever it is they're fighting about. Unlike many of Shakespeare's other tragedies, this one largely plays like one of the romantic comedies, up to the point that people start dying.
*I think one reason Lady Gaga is so popular is that her existence answers the age-old question, what would it be like if Madonna had a child with Elton John?
*Many of President Obama's far-right critics get angry about his religious statements for the same reason his far-left critics ignore them: neither group believes he's telling the truth. Their reactions to President Bush's religious statements were the opposite: each believed he was absolutely truthful in his views about faith.
*President Obama is starting to suffer the same problem with this oil spill that President Bush had with Hurricane Katrina: perceived lack of action. This is something that politicians must deal with, regardless of whether or not they are in a position to actually do anything.
*I actually had dreams about the final episode of LOST the other night. I think my brain was still trying to figure out a way to make sense of that ending. At least the ending was consistent with the overall style of the show. Too many shows, like Quantum Leap, Enterprise, Seinfeld, or even Dollhouse try to do a "big event" ending that ends up being a totally different type of episode that doesn't have the key elements that made us love the show in the first place. The next-to-the-last episode ends up being a better conclusion than the series ending event. I still think every copy of the final Enterprise episode needs to be gathered together and destroyed.
*Shows in the 1960's were shot on film, often 35mm. They were edited on film, with special effects processed on film. Thus, they maintain the high resolution that film provides and when they're cleaned up and released on DVD or Blu-Ray, they look outstanding. (The recent Blu-Ray releases of the original Star Trek are an excellent example.) By comparison, shows from the 80's or 90's like Star Trek: The Next Generation were shot on film, then transferred to video for editing and visual effects work. As a result, the supposedly more advanced TNG looks far less impressive on modern high-definition sets. The image is fuzzier, colors are less vibrant, and the effects just look artificial and over-processed. On the other hand, hi-def makes it much easier to see the make-up lines on Spock's ears.
*Way back when, "superstation" TBS showed nearly every Atlanta Braves game, and a Braves fan like me could watch from virtually anywhere in the country. Now TBS focuses on reruns and cheesy original shows, and baseball coverage is heavily regionalized. I can only watch the Braves if they are on ESPN or playing one of the New York teams. This is all the more disappointing when I think about how last year I could hop on a MARTA train in Atlanta and get seats behind home plate in the upper deck for $8 just about anytime I felt the urge. I'm not suggesting that whoever runs TBS should be whacked in the face with a sock full of marbles. Not at all.
*I just did a spell-check on this blog. The spell-checker highlights "Obama" as a potentially misspelled word. Really??? I think they need to update the blogger software....
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Thoughts On Film: Tarantino Ends the War His Way
"I have a message for Germany: that you are all going to die. And I want you to look deep into the face of the Jew who is going to do it!" --Shosanna Dreyfus
Quentin Tarantino makes films that are at once distinctly his yet also derivative of the films he loves. Throughout any given Tarantino film there will be character names, camera moves, music cues, and plot lines that can be found in various spaghetti western, samurai, crime, or action movies. His talent lies in taking these different elements and combining them into something that is uniquely his. His most recent feature, 2009's Inglourious Basterds derives its title (but not its plot) from a correctly-spelled 1978 film and like his previous opus Kill Bill the plot revolves around a woman seeking revenge for the murder of her family.
Unlike previous Tarantino efforts, the plot unfolds in fairly linear fashion: the film is divided into five "chapters," the first of which is titled "Once upon a time...in Nazi-occupied France." This is the first clue that this film is no ordinary World War II story. Like anything that begins "once upon a time," it is mere fantasy, a story that takes place during WWII but is not about WWII. While some have criticized the film for being openly historically inaccurate, it makes no claim to be anything beyond a fictional yarn. Indeed, it is probably no less historically accurate than films that offer a veneer of authenticity such as The Da Vinci Code or Braveheart. (In case you're wondering, the Scots did not wear kilts during the time that Braveheart takes place, and William Wallace's father was an aristocrat, not a peasant. It is still a gripping film, but let's not pretend that it is a truthful one.)
***Minor plot spoilers ahead***
The opening scene introduces us to Nazi Col. Hans Landa (magnificently portrayed by Oscar-winner Christoph Waltz, in a role that requires him to switch between speaking German, French, English, and Italian), also known as "the Jew Hunter," as he visits a French dairy farm looking for Jews in hiding. Landa is skilled at linguistic manipulation and, despite his charm, manages during the film to convince nearly anyone in the film to confess to anything he wants to hear. Talking the hapless farmer into an "offer he can't refuse," Landa extracts the location of the hiding Dreyfus family and has his soldiers shoot up the room. Only the daughter Shosanna (the lovely Melanie Laurent, pictured above) manages to escape.
Meanwhile, US Army Lt. Aldo Raine (the hysterically funny Brad Pitt), a straight-shooter from Maynardville, TN, has put together a team of Jewish American soldiers (to include torture-porn director Eli Roth and The Office's B.J. Novak) and one very disgruntled ex-Nazi to carry out a guerrilla mission: kill and scalp as many Nazis as possible and spread terror throughout the Third Reich. They institute a policy of letting one Nazi "escape" every time in order to relay to his superiors the horrors visited upon his compatriots.
Years after the massacre of her family, Shosanna, hair dyed blonde, is running a movie theatre in Paris under the assumed name of Emmanuelle Mimieux. She catches the eye of Pvt. Frederick Zoller, a Nazi soldier who is something of a combined Alvin York and Audie Murphy for the Nazis: a war hero whose fame has led to his portrayal of himself in an upcoming propaganda film, A Nation's Pride. Hoping to ingratiate himself with the pretty cinema owner, he convinces the Nazi propaganda master Joseph Goebbels to hold the premiere screening of ANP at Shosanna's theatre. She decides that her opportunity for revenge is here; she will lock the Nazis in the theater and burn it down. Unknown to her, A British officer (Michael Fassbender) and Raine's troops are planning to infiltrate the cinema and do the same thing, with the aid of glamorous German actress-turned-spy Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger).
As with his previous works, Tarantino uses "found" music rather than original score. Particularly notable is his use of Ennio Morricone's spaghetti western cues, something that would seem to be out of place in WWII France yet somehow it works. Then again, what other director would include David Bowie's "Cat People," with its eerily appropriate refrain "putting out the fire with gasoline," in a WWII movie?
Two important concepts are repeated throughout the film: the importance of language and the power of film. Fully half of the dialogue in this movie is not English: most of the main characters speak a mixture of German or French, with some Italian thrown in. (Or in Pitt's case, hilariously mangled Italian.) One scene in a restaurant is played straight through with characters speaking German or French, and waiting for a translator to go between them while the viewer reads the subtitles. While one might expect this to get dull or cumbersome, Tarantino uses this technique to build tension. These characters must rely on language to keep from blowing their covers, and we are shown that even a cultural misstep such as an odd hand gesture can ruin the illusion. At one point, Hammersmark wonders aloud if the Americans can speak anything other than English without "an atrocious accent." Unlike Kill Bill, which had extended complex action sequences, this film instead follows Hitchcock's definition of suspense: action is a bomb exploding; suspense is when a bomb is going to explode.
The cinema functions almost as a character in the story. Shosanna owns a cinema, Zoller is an actor and film lover, an Allied spy is a famous actress, the British officer was a film critic before the war, and Goebbels fancies himself the father of a new age of German cinema. Naturally, all these characters come together at a film premiere, and while the story involves bringing down the Nazis by blowing up a theatre full of extra-flammable silver nitrate film, the point is that this film itself is a sort of victory over the Nazis. Through the power of movies, Tarantino can end WWII the way he wants to end it. Hitler may have died cowering in a bunker, but it seems more poetic to have him meet his end watching a propaganda flick. And Tarantino gets to control who pulls the strings: in his world, the victims of the Third Reich's "final solution" are no longer victims, but active participants who get to play a vital role in bringing the Nazis to their knees.
While this film also contains Tarantino's trademark profanity and violence, it probably contains less of them than his other movies. His dark and bizarre humor is always evident, as is his rumored foot fetish. More than anything, Tarantino loves to have fun at the movies, and this is about as much fun in an alternate-reality WWII as you're likely to have.
Friday, May 7, 2010
A Plethora of Ignorance
Ok, I really will try to reduce the one-month gap between posts on here. Literary irregularity is a loathsome thing.
*************************
One thing that is great about the internet and the massive amount of television, radio, film, and print media is that so much information can spread so quickly. One unfortunate thing about it all is that a lot of people can spread misinformation just as quickly, and this misinformation becomes fact. You may remember just a few years ago that reporters were telling shocking stories about the behavior of folks in New Orleans after the hurricane, and it turned out that many of those reports were ridiculously exaggerated. (Unfortunately, not all of them were.) (Also, this makes me wonder why the massive flood in Tennessee that has left much of Nashville underwater does not get more coverage. Thirty people are dead because of this flood. I have yet to see the President flying over in a chopper, showing solidarity with his fellow citizens. There hasn't been a major nationwide telethon to raise funds. If slow response to a disaster gives Kanye West the opportunity to claim that President Bush (the guy who had Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice in his cabinet) hates black people, then can we infer that President Obama hates country music?)
But I digress. Lots of people are up in arms over Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law. Celebrities such as Shakira and Bishop Tutu (are they even citizens here???) have spoken out against it. The Phoenix Suns showed solidarity with Arizona's Mexican nationals by printing "Los Suns" on their jerseys, providing a rare opportunity to seem dumb in both English and Spanish. (Make up your minds...either stay "The Suns" or go all the way to "Los Sols." Lousy bilingualism doesn't do anyone any good.) (Also, more than one commentator has noted that the Suns play in an arena with secure points of entry and they require entrants to present tickets to get inside. Those found inside without proper credentials will be promptly escorted out by security. I should not need to point out the irony of this.)
Anyway, if you have questions about the new law, I recommend that you read this article by one of the people who crafted the law. Every legitimate objection I've heard is addressed, because the writers of the law expected people to challenge it, though I doubt they expected the backlash to be as bad as it has. Thousands were out in the street protesting, vandalizing, throwing things at police, getting arrested. (Contrast this to the controversial Tea Party rallies, where even allegations of rude comments towards Congresspersons have not been substantiated by video or audio evidence.) But the point I want to make is that when even the President criticized the law by claiming that a family going to get ice cream could be harassed, he was wrong. Only someone who is committing another legal violation, i.e. speeding, drug trafficking, kidnapping, and who cannot provide evidence of legal residence in the US can be given a background check for illegal entry, and only then by federal officials. All these people are protesting because a state law reinforces a pre-existing federal law. Also, a whole lot of the people criticizing the statute do not live in Arizona, where the law has broad support in such numbers that many legal immigrants and minorities support it. (I should disclose that though I've never lived in Arizona, I used to live in New Mexico and constantly heard stories about the illegal mind-altering substances that crossed the border. I guess that's why it's called the "Land of Enchantment.")
What really ticks me off is the amount of willful ignorance that is coming into play. I know, many people who oppose the law are concerned about the civil rights of those who are here legally and might be discriminated against because of their appearance or accent. (Check the link above--the law is written to account for such bias!) But it is possible to oppose allowing illegal immigrants to stream across the border without opposing legal immigration. I have known, worshipped with, and worked with people who came here from Thailand, China, Turkey, Mexico, Australia, Kenya, and Canada, among other places. Several of my friends from those nations are now US citizens. (I appreciate them because they chose to have something that I was granted at birth--US citizenship.) One of my best friends during some of my Army training was my roommate, who was originally from Mexico, and I can't imagine having a better friend to get me through some of the tough times. I do not hate immigrants. In fact, I respect immigrants so much that I think that others who want to move here shouldn't disrespect their fellow immigrants by breaking the law.
Sometime later this summer I plan to drive thirty miles up the road to the Canadian border. You think they'll let me across without my passport?
*************************
One thing that is great about the internet and the massive amount of television, radio, film, and print media is that so much information can spread so quickly. One unfortunate thing about it all is that a lot of people can spread misinformation just as quickly, and this misinformation becomes fact. You may remember just a few years ago that reporters were telling shocking stories about the behavior of folks in New Orleans after the hurricane, and it turned out that many of those reports were ridiculously exaggerated. (Unfortunately, not all of them were.) (Also, this makes me wonder why the massive flood in Tennessee that has left much of Nashville underwater does not get more coverage. Thirty people are dead because of this flood. I have yet to see the President flying over in a chopper, showing solidarity with his fellow citizens. There hasn't been a major nationwide telethon to raise funds. If slow response to a disaster gives Kanye West the opportunity to claim that President Bush (the guy who had Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice in his cabinet) hates black people, then can we infer that President Obama hates country music?)
But I digress. Lots of people are up in arms over Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law. Celebrities such as Shakira and Bishop Tutu (are they even citizens here???) have spoken out against it. The Phoenix Suns showed solidarity with Arizona's Mexican nationals by printing "Los Suns" on their jerseys, providing a rare opportunity to seem dumb in both English and Spanish. (Make up your minds...either stay "The Suns" or go all the way to "Los Sols." Lousy bilingualism doesn't do anyone any good.) (Also, more than one commentator has noted that the Suns play in an arena with secure points of entry and they require entrants to present tickets to get inside. Those found inside without proper credentials will be promptly escorted out by security. I should not need to point out the irony of this.)
Anyway, if you have questions about the new law, I recommend that you read this article by one of the people who crafted the law. Every legitimate objection I've heard is addressed, because the writers of the law expected people to challenge it, though I doubt they expected the backlash to be as bad as it has. Thousands were out in the street protesting, vandalizing, throwing things at police, getting arrested. (Contrast this to the controversial Tea Party rallies, where even allegations of rude comments towards Congresspersons have not been substantiated by video or audio evidence.) But the point I want to make is that when even the President criticized the law by claiming that a family going to get ice cream could be harassed, he was wrong. Only someone who is committing another legal violation, i.e. speeding, drug trafficking, kidnapping, and who cannot provide evidence of legal residence in the US can be given a background check for illegal entry, and only then by federal officials. All these people are protesting because a state law reinforces a pre-existing federal law. Also, a whole lot of the people criticizing the statute do not live in Arizona, where the law has broad support in such numbers that many legal immigrants and minorities support it. (I should disclose that though I've never lived in Arizona, I used to live in New Mexico and constantly heard stories about the illegal mind-altering substances that crossed the border. I guess that's why it's called the "Land of Enchantment.")
What really ticks me off is the amount of willful ignorance that is coming into play. I know, many people who oppose the law are concerned about the civil rights of those who are here legally and might be discriminated against because of their appearance or accent. (Check the link above--the law is written to account for such bias!) But it is possible to oppose allowing illegal immigrants to stream across the border without opposing legal immigration. I have known, worshipped with, and worked with people who came here from Thailand, China, Turkey, Mexico, Australia, Kenya, and Canada, among other places. Several of my friends from those nations are now US citizens. (I appreciate them because they chose to have something that I was granted at birth--US citizenship.) One of my best friends during some of my Army training was my roommate, who was originally from Mexico, and I can't imagine having a better friend to get me through some of the tough times. I do not hate immigrants. In fact, I respect immigrants so much that I think that others who want to move here shouldn't disrespect their fellow immigrants by breaking the law.
Sometime later this summer I plan to drive thirty miles up the road to the Canadian border. You think they'll let me across without my passport?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Liftoff!
Lit up with anticipation
We arrive at the launching site
The sky is still dark, nearing dawn
On the Florida coastline
--"Countdown" by Rush (lyrics by Neil Peart, music by Geddy Lee/Alex Lifeson)
I have written on multiple occasions on this blog about my quest to see a launch of the Space Shuttle before the program is canned later this year. I've wanted to see the event in person since I was in kindergarten, when my dad woke me up early to watch the first launch of Columbia, nearing its 29th anniversary on April 12. I had made trips to Florida on several occasions last summer, but was hindered by technical problems or inclement weather. I was concerned that my relocation to Ft. Drum, NY would end my chances since the distance would make a quick trip impractical. When I realized that Discovery was scheduled to launch the day after Easter, a four-day weekend for the Army, I knew that this might be the last opportunity I would have. I'm fortunate that my grandmother lives across the state in St. Petersburg and she was willing to let me borrow her car, thus saving me from paying for a hotel and rental car.
I flew out of Syracuse early Saturday morning, April 3. A quick layover in Charlotte, NC and soon I was in the aptly-named Sunshine State. Unlike my previous trips, there were no predictions of thunderstorms. I made sure to have lunch at Chick-Fil-A, a chain that doesn't have any locations in New York. The rest of the day was split between sleep and Final Four basketball.
After the Easter service on Sunday morning, I began preparation for the drive to the coast. It turned out that Katherine, a friend of mine since college, was driving down from Tennessee to see the launch also. (I have long envied her for attending Space Camp.) We made arrangements to meet in Orlando.
This magic day when super-science
Mingles with the bright stuff of dreams
At about 3:30 am, we headed for Cape Canaveral. The NASA technical crew had managed to avoid any major technical glitches and the only weather issue was the possibility of a light fog. I found my viewing site of choice, near Port Canaveral just outside the gates of the Air Force base. We managed to squeeze in between some of the numerous cars that were already there and get an unobstructed view of the launch pad a few miles to the north, the white orbiter and its burnt orange fuel tank visible in the spotlights. After much hunting for a radio station with launch news (1300 AM) we listened closely for updates. The announcer mentioned that the Shuttle's destination, the International Space Station, would be passing overhead west to east in a few minutes, so we got out of the car and watched for movement. After a short while, I saw it passing close to the last-quarter moon--a bright spot of light moving steadily through the sky. (This was my second time seeing the ISS pass over; the first was at an open house at GSU's Hard Labor Creek Observatory outside Atlanta.) This made for a nice prelude to the main event.
Excitement so thick you could cut it with a knife
Technology high on the leading edge of life
We waited through a couple of tense moments as a particular indicator failed to light up, but the backup was working and the man at the switch said "We're 'go' with just one." As the countdown resumed from the T-minus-9 minute hold, the long list of various supervisors at the different monitoring stations each announced that their status was "go," meaning that there were no problems visible that would stop the launch. After the long wait, it seemed like almost no time passed between the four-minute and two-minute mark. I readied my camera, and checked with Katherine's binoculars as they announced that the cap on the fuel tank had been removed. Thirty seconds. This is actually going to happen, I thought. Seemingly without warning, a bright flash of light from the pad indicated that the main engines had ignited, and seemingly much faster than it looks on television an even brighter flash followed with a great plume of smoke surrounding the pad.
Scorching blast of golden fire
As it slowly leaves the ground
Tears away with a mighty force
The air is shattered by the awesome sound
There it was: a great tower of fire and smoke rising against the morning darkness. (This wasn't considered a night launch, but for all intents and purposes it was since the sun was not yet up.) Thanks to my digital camera, I managed to snap some shots without having to squint through a viewfinder. The tower of fire curved towards the southeast as the Shuttle performed its roll maneuver, and moments later we were treated to the delayed roar of the engines and the double-boom of the sound barrier being shattered. The Shuttle climbed higher, and I thought I saw the glow of the twin booster rockets being ejected, but I couldn't be sure as my sense of time was totally out of whack. We watched as the fireball became a smoky vapor, with the smoke from the rockets leaving a variety of twisted cloud shapes and the bright glow of the main engines becoming dimmer as it moved down toward the horizon against the glow of the sunrise. We got back in the car and crept out of the area through the long line of traffic, thrilled at the sight we had just seen and happy to hear the radio announcement that with the separation from the fuel tank Discovery had reached orbit. Mission accomplished!
Like a pillar of cloud, the smoke lingers
High in the air
In fascination, with the eyes of the world we stare...
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
This Might Be A Reason To Get Mad
Earlier this week, the Health Care Reform bill was signed into law. I expressed my misgivings with the bill in my last post. I also expressed in my earlier post about M&M's that I think it is generally a bad idea for Congress to pass laws that are so huge that no one has read them in their entirety. I'd like to convey the fact that even if I supported everything in the bill, I would not happy with the way that it was passed. Backroom political deals, complete disinterest in the opinions of those who a representative represents, and faith in Presidential executive orders that are completely non-binding in legal terms are not the way business is supposed to be done in Washington. We should demand better from our elected officials. After all, they work for us, not vice versa.
Still, the real sticking point for me is the whole issue of mandating health insurance. The bill has a section in which all adults are required to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. (Partly this is problematic because since the fine will be lower than what many private companies charge for insurance, and the bill also is supposed to remove any restrictions on companies turning people down for pre-existing conditions, a lot of penny-pinchers will simply wait until they are ill or injured to buy an insurance plan, which somewhat defeats the purpose of buying insurance in the first place.) Think about that: the federal government is going to require you to buy something. If you don't, you are breaking the law.
Now, some of you may not think that's such a bad idea. Everyone has to contribute to the pot for everyone to receive the benefits, right? When you choose to buy insurance, after all, that's what happens. You pay in a small part, and people who need it benefit from your payment. When you need the money, you benefit from what other people have paid in. If you never use it, you have no benefit except the peace of mind that comes from having a safety net. Maybe you noticed that I emphasized the word "choose" up there. That's right, before this bill passed there was a choice. That choice is effectively gone. Sure, you can choose which one to buy, but the buying itself is no longer in question. You will buy health insurance, or you will pay a penalty. They're getting your money one way or the other.
Besides, you have to buy car insurance, right? Well, not if you don't drive. Not if you don't own/rent a car. Also, car insurance mandates come from the states, not the federal government, and each state has different requirements for its policies. If you really get burned on your state's auto insurance laws, you do have the choice to go to a different state where the requirements suit you. Whereas when the government tells you to do something, there is nowhere else to go as long as you're a citizen of the US. This is almost like the government telling you to buy a car. (Maybe they can just ban imports; this will improve market conditions for US auto manufacturers.)
Now, if you still don't see the problem that I have, let's take this a bit further. (After all, I'm sure you can think of one or two programs from Washington that have been abused and expanded a lot since they were first enacted.) This bill sets a precedent that the federal government can require you to buy something from the private sector, and they will track which purchase you make. Now imagine that someone ginned up enough support to pass a bill that mandates that you buy one gallon of chocolate ice cream once a month to support the dairy industry. Don't get me wrong--I love chocolate ice cream. But some of the joy of eating it might vanish when I have seven gallons sitting in my freezer because I can't eat that much in a month and still maintain my physical condition for being in the Army. Not to mention, I might have preferred to buy cookies and cream, but I only have so much money for ice cream and I must fill my chocolate quota first. Maybe I'll skip the next couple of months, but then they'll fine me, and not only might that cause consequences with my federal military employment, but that's money that I wanted to save for a plane ticket to visit my family back home, despite the fact that they're getting sick of chocolate ice cream too.
Let's step on a few more toes, shall we? The Bill of Rights says that I have a right to keep and bear arms. Suppose the NRA lobbies successfully to mandate that everyone reinforce that right by purchasing a firearm. Now you have to buy a gun or rifle, register it, and keep it on your property. And let's not forget that a firearm is just an expensive club unless you have ammunition, so you must have a full box of appropriate ammo for your weapon of choice. And if you have kids, you have to buy safety locks to keep it out of their curious hands. All of the sudden, something that was supposed to secure freedom has become an obstacle to freedom instead. At least if your neighbor accidentally shoots you with his government-mandated Colt .45, they've thought ahead by making you get insured.
Still, the real sticking point for me is the whole issue of mandating health insurance. The bill has a section in which all adults are required to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. (Partly this is problematic because since the fine will be lower than what many private companies charge for insurance, and the bill also is supposed to remove any restrictions on companies turning people down for pre-existing conditions, a lot of penny-pinchers will simply wait until they are ill or injured to buy an insurance plan, which somewhat defeats the purpose of buying insurance in the first place.) Think about that: the federal government is going to require you to buy something. If you don't, you are breaking the law.
Now, some of you may not think that's such a bad idea. Everyone has to contribute to the pot for everyone to receive the benefits, right? When you choose to buy insurance, after all, that's what happens. You pay in a small part, and people who need it benefit from your payment. When you need the money, you benefit from what other people have paid in. If you never use it, you have no benefit except the peace of mind that comes from having a safety net. Maybe you noticed that I emphasized the word "choose" up there. That's right, before this bill passed there was a choice. That choice is effectively gone. Sure, you can choose which one to buy, but the buying itself is no longer in question. You will buy health insurance, or you will pay a penalty. They're getting your money one way or the other.
Besides, you have to buy car insurance, right? Well, not if you don't drive. Not if you don't own/rent a car. Also, car insurance mandates come from the states, not the federal government, and each state has different requirements for its policies. If you really get burned on your state's auto insurance laws, you do have the choice to go to a different state where the requirements suit you. Whereas when the government tells you to do something, there is nowhere else to go as long as you're a citizen of the US. This is almost like the government telling you to buy a car. (Maybe they can just ban imports; this will improve market conditions for US auto manufacturers.)
Now, if you still don't see the problem that I have, let's take this a bit further. (After all, I'm sure you can think of one or two programs from Washington that have been abused and expanded a lot since they were first enacted.) This bill sets a precedent that the federal government can require you to buy something from the private sector, and they will track which purchase you make. Now imagine that someone ginned up enough support to pass a bill that mandates that you buy one gallon of chocolate ice cream once a month to support the dairy industry. Don't get me wrong--I love chocolate ice cream. But some of the joy of eating it might vanish when I have seven gallons sitting in my freezer because I can't eat that much in a month and still maintain my physical condition for being in the Army. Not to mention, I might have preferred to buy cookies and cream, but I only have so much money for ice cream and I must fill my chocolate quota first. Maybe I'll skip the next couple of months, but then they'll fine me, and not only might that cause consequences with my federal military employment, but that's money that I wanted to save for a plane ticket to visit my family back home, despite the fact that they're getting sick of chocolate ice cream too.
Let's step on a few more toes, shall we? The Bill of Rights says that I have a right to keep and bear arms. Suppose the NRA lobbies successfully to mandate that everyone reinforce that right by purchasing a firearm. Now you have to buy a gun or rifle, register it, and keep it on your property. And let's not forget that a firearm is just an expensive club unless you have ammunition, so you must have a full box of appropriate ammo for your weapon of choice. And if you have kids, you have to buy safety locks to keep it out of their curious hands. All of the sudden, something that was supposed to secure freedom has become an obstacle to freedom instead. At least if your neighbor accidentally shoots you with his government-mandated Colt .45, they've thought ahead by making you get insured.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Random Typing
Sometimes there are things I just have to get out of me. Fortunately, blogging is a convenient way to do just that! So here goes....
-Sometimes people with political, social, or religious views different from yours act like jerks. That does not mean that all the people who agree with their views are jerks also. It also does not excuse you if you act like a jerk in response.
-Grammar Nazi moment: Could have: a way of stating a possible result, I could have bought a new car if I had saved my money. Could of does not mean ANYTHING AT ALL. Please stop using it, all you people who do.
-Most of the problems I have encountered as a teacher, student, soldier, boyfriend, son, brother, citizen, etc. result from people not communicating. We spend most of our lives around other people, talking, writing, reading, interacting, and yet so often we are absolutely miserable at communicating and frustration, suspicion, distrust, and unhappiness are the result.
-If you support the "Tea Party" movement, don't have a knee-jerk response that anyone who questions you is a socialist or communist. Respond to detractors with logic and sound arguments, not names. If you don't support the "Tea Party" movement, don't call people who do "teabaggers." "Socalist" and "communist" are not insults; "teabagger" is. It is crude, inappropriate, and will not do anything to change anyone's mind. Grow up. Grow up.
-I'm sad to notice that all the commercials on the radio or TV talking about the importance of the 2010 Census do not mention at all the ONE reason why a census is mandated in the Constitution: to determine the population so that states may be properly represented in Congress (Article 1, section 2). To me it seems like that is a far more important reason than any of the other things they bring up, all of which can be addressed locally most of the time.
-Grammar Nazi Moment: Lose means the act of misplacing an item or being defeated in a contest, loose means not securely fastened or of low moral standing. I wish I had ten dollars for every time I've seen the first word spelled like the second. By professionals. Adults with college degrees. English is your language. Learn to use it properly!!!
-Most things are cheaper a few weeks or months after they become available. Often, patience results in saved money.
-I've seen some commentators deride certain public figures for not attending a prestigious, private or Ivy League university. These same people are staunch advocates of public school unions and harshly criticize independent grade schools, charter schools, and home schools. I am waiting for some of these people to notice the contradiction.
-No one likes a know-it-all. Fortunately, we have blogs that you can choose to ignore.
-During a break at work today, I caught some of an ESPN show where several people were discussing the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. It hit me, these people are passionately arguing who is right or wrong about what they think will happen in a basketball game. And they get really worked up about it. The more I contemplate this, the more bizarre it seems. We don't take the Psychic Friends Network seriously, but people will wager hundreds of dollars based on what these folks say. And for all their experience and knowledge of basketball, their odds of being right are about the same as what the Psychic Friends will give you.
-For the record, I think nationalized health care is a bad idea. Here's why: I know people in wheelchairs, with cancer, with multiple sclerosis, all sorts of unfortunate conditions. I like the idea that if a particular provider or insurance company doesn't provide good service, they have the option to look elsewhere. Most people agree that, well-intentioned as it was, No Child Left Behind created more problems than it solved in the educational system. Odds are that massive health care legislation will do the same thing. After all, how many other government programs run more efficiently and cost less than the experts predict? Zero. Every single time.
-Along the same line, the President was a lawyer, and is married to a lawyer. A lot of lawyers are way, way overpaid. In fact, the outrageous fees in malpractice lawsuits are one reason why medical costs are so high, because doctors must pay high costs for malpractice insurance. The President has demonized bankers for being overpaid. He has demonized doctors for being overpaid. He has demonized insurance companies for being overpaid. But he hasn't said a word about the overpaid malpractice lawyers. Coincidence? You decide. I won't say anymore on this subject since the President is, legally, my boss. (Also, not trying to pick on lawyers; just stating facts.)
-Some folks criticize religious people for their prohibitions or limitations on drinking, or premarital sex, or foul language, or kosher diets, or why certain holidays are observed. Yet we are bombarded with news flashes on why certain foods cause cancer, certain drinks make you fat, why smoking will kill you, cell phones will kill you, television will kill you, driving will kill you, flying will kill you, why you aren't exercising enough, and why you shouldn't exercise too much. I guess no matter what you believe or how you live, some people just can't resist trying to tell you how you should.
-The above statement does not express a belief in a relativistic world view, far from it. I'm actually just making an observation about common trends in our culture from different ideological viewpoints.
-Tennessee is a football school. Kentucky is a basketball school. The difference between the two is that Tennessee still occasionally defeats Kentucky in basketball.
-Sometimes people with political, social, or religious views different from yours act like jerks. That does not mean that all the people who agree with their views are jerks also. It also does not excuse you if you act like a jerk in response.
-Grammar Nazi moment: Could have: a way of stating a possible result, I could have bought a new car if I had saved my money. Could of does not mean ANYTHING AT ALL. Please stop using it, all you people who do.
-Most of the problems I have encountered as a teacher, student, soldier, boyfriend, son, brother, citizen, etc. result from people not communicating. We spend most of our lives around other people, talking, writing, reading, interacting, and yet so often we are absolutely miserable at communicating and frustration, suspicion, distrust, and unhappiness are the result.
-If you support the "Tea Party" movement, don't have a knee-jerk response that anyone who questions you is a socialist or communist. Respond to detractors with logic and sound arguments, not names. If you don't support the "Tea Party" movement, don't call people who do "teabaggers." "Socalist" and "communist" are not insults; "teabagger" is. It is crude, inappropriate, and will not do anything to change anyone's mind. Grow up. Grow up.
-I'm sad to notice that all the commercials on the radio or TV talking about the importance of the 2010 Census do not mention at all the ONE reason why a census is mandated in the Constitution: to determine the population so that states may be properly represented in Congress (Article 1, section 2). To me it seems like that is a far more important reason than any of the other things they bring up, all of which can be addressed locally most of the time.
-Grammar Nazi Moment: Lose means the act of misplacing an item or being defeated in a contest, loose means not securely fastened or of low moral standing. I wish I had ten dollars for every time I've seen the first word spelled like the second. By professionals. Adults with college degrees. English is your language. Learn to use it properly!!!
-Most things are cheaper a few weeks or months after they become available. Often, patience results in saved money.
-I've seen some commentators deride certain public figures for not attending a prestigious, private or Ivy League university. These same people are staunch advocates of public school unions and harshly criticize independent grade schools, charter schools, and home schools. I am waiting for some of these people to notice the contradiction.
-No one likes a know-it-all. Fortunately, we have blogs that you can choose to ignore.
-During a break at work today, I caught some of an ESPN show where several people were discussing the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. It hit me, these people are passionately arguing who is right or wrong about what they think will happen in a basketball game. And they get really worked up about it. The more I contemplate this, the more bizarre it seems. We don't take the Psychic Friends Network seriously, but people will wager hundreds of dollars based on what these folks say. And for all their experience and knowledge of basketball, their odds of being right are about the same as what the Psychic Friends will give you.
-For the record, I think nationalized health care is a bad idea. Here's why: I know people in wheelchairs, with cancer, with multiple sclerosis, all sorts of unfortunate conditions. I like the idea that if a particular provider or insurance company doesn't provide good service, they have the option to look elsewhere. Most people agree that, well-intentioned as it was, No Child Left Behind created more problems than it solved in the educational system. Odds are that massive health care legislation will do the same thing. After all, how many other government programs run more efficiently and cost less than the experts predict? Zero. Every single time.
-Along the same line, the President was a lawyer, and is married to a lawyer. A lot of lawyers are way, way overpaid. In fact, the outrageous fees in malpractice lawsuits are one reason why medical costs are so high, because doctors must pay high costs for malpractice insurance. The President has demonized bankers for being overpaid. He has demonized doctors for being overpaid. He has demonized insurance companies for being overpaid. But he hasn't said a word about the overpaid malpractice lawyers. Coincidence? You decide. I won't say anymore on this subject since the President is, legally, my boss. (Also, not trying to pick on lawyers; just stating facts.)
-Some folks criticize religious people for their prohibitions or limitations on drinking, or premarital sex, or foul language, or kosher diets, or why certain holidays are observed. Yet we are bombarded with news flashes on why certain foods cause cancer, certain drinks make you fat, why smoking will kill you, cell phones will kill you, television will kill you, driving will kill you, flying will kill you, why you aren't exercising enough, and why you shouldn't exercise too much. I guess no matter what you believe or how you live, some people just can't resist trying to tell you how you should.
-The above statement does not express a belief in a relativistic world view, far from it. I'm actually just making an observation about common trends in our culture from different ideological viewpoints.
-Tennessee is a football school. Kentucky is a basketball school. The difference between the two is that Tennessee still occasionally defeats Kentucky in basketball.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
When Oscar's Wrong
Well, yet again I've taken quite a while to write another blog entry. I've been busy--traveling to New York City to see the Vienna Philharmonic again, traveling to Nashville after the birth of my niece Kaitlin, staying busy at work, watching the Olympics, bargain-shopping for new additions to my Blu-Ray collection...the first couple of months of 2010 have been a bit crazy.
But it's March, and to a film buff like me, that means Oscar time! This period of the year always drives me nuts, and there are numerous reasons why. As usual, there are a whole lot of nominated films that I haven't yet seen, though several are on my to-do list. Then there's my irritation at the pomposity of Hollywood: they get all dressed up to award golden statuettes to...themselves, they wear ribbons to show the world that "they care" about causes (but not enough to give up any large percentage of their wealth in contributing to solutions), they decide that excellence as entertainers means that a show about awarding movies is also a political commentary, a social commentary, an emotional triumph, a grand spectacle, and a comedy routine. (And that's just the opening number.) So concerned are they with the glamor that they give themselves a red carpet to walk down, as if pretending to be something you're not makes you some kind of royalty. And yet for so many film fans, including me, Oscar night still is worth paying attention to; we love the idea that somehow recognizing excellence in film elevates the art form, and also elevates those of us who love watching movies. So here are some of my thoughts about this year's awards from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
They have expanded the Best Picture category to ten films this year, largely in reaction to the displeasure that many critics have had that popular films are often ignored by the Academy. Of the Top 25 grossing movies of all time, only six have received Best Picture nominations (*winners): Avatar (nominated this year), Titanic*, The Return of the King*, The Two Towers, The Fellowship of the Ring, and Star Wars. In the next ten top-grossing films, only this year's Up and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial got nods. The turning point seems to have been the exclusion of last year's biggest hit The Dark Knight, and so the Academy has doubled the field, and sure enough this year's list includes films like District 9 and Up that probably wouldn't have made the cut otherwise. (I was proud that some critics thought that Star Trek merited inclusion, but alas, it probably placed eleventh in the balloting.) Still, the upshot is that while more films can brag of being Best Picture nominees, only three films are considered as likely contenders: Avatar (the reigning box office champion), The Hurt Locker (a favorite of the critics that performed poorly at the box office but has won most of the important "predictive" awards, including the Producer's Guild and Director's Guild), and Inglourious Basterds (winner of the SAG award).
Interestingly, James Cameron was (deservedly) ignored in the original screenplay category for Avatar. His Best Picture-winning Titanic also was left out of this category, a rare film to win top honors while the script couldn't make the top five. You can check out my review of Avatar for a more thorough analysis, but suffice to say that while he is a visionary filmmaker who pushes the limits of technology and makes greatly entertaining movies, Cameron is lousy at writing dialogue. (He shares this trait with George Lucas, but at least Star Wars got a screenplay nomination. Woody Allen's Annie Hall deserved to beat Lucas in that category, but Star Wars should have won Best Director and Best Picture.)
I'm sorry to say I haven't seen any of the Best Actress nominees this year. Most are predicting Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side, but I'm still pulling for Carey Mulligan in An Education. This is largely because she was great as Sally Sparrow in the Hugo-winning Doctor Who episode "Blink." (For my money, that's the best time travel story EVER.) Also, I would like to have seen a Supporting Actress nomination for Diane Kruger or Melanie Laurent in Inglourious Basterds. Still, at least we can be certain that Supporting Actor nominee Christoph Waltz will walk away victorious; since the film came out critics have proclaimed the nomination a mere formality--he is responsible for one of the few convincingly evil yet charming psychopaths in film history.
Michael Giacchino should have received nominations for his musical scores for The Incredibles and Star Trek, so I hope he takes one home for Up.
Speaking of which, Up is the second animated film to get a Best Picture nomination, after Beauty and the Beast in 1991. It is the first computer-generated film to be so honored. It won't win, but it has the Best Animated Feature category, something Beauty did not have. I like to think Beauty placed a close second to Silence of the Lambs, but there's no way to prove it.
Star Trek's best hope is in the Best Makeup category, the only one where it isn't competing with Avatar. (Star Trek VI should have won this over the oft-Oscared Terminator 2 in my opinion.) I think it has the edge not only for its complex aliens, tattooed Romulans, and making Zachary Quinto look like young Leonard Nimoy, but because Rachel Nichols is hot even when she's green.
And now for some thoughts on Oscar stuff from years past:
Anthony Hopkins won Best Actor for The Silence of the Lambs despite having less screen time than Supporting Actor winner Tommy Lee Jones of The Fugitive or Supporting nominee Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense, who I think deserved to win.
Though it's often said to be the best of the series, The Empire Strikes Back did not receive a Best Picture nomination like Star Wars did. Revenge of the Sith is the only film in the series that did not get a Special Visual Effects nomination, though it certainly deserved one. It was nominated for Best Makeup. It didn't win. (In fact, none of the prequel films won an Oscar; all of the original trilogy picked up at least one.)
The Godfather Part II and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King are the only sequels to win Best Picture. (One could argue that Avatar is a futuristic sequel to Dances With Wolves.)
Cimarron, Dances With Wolves, and Unforgiven are the only Westerns to win the top award. Most critics believe Cimarron benefited from a weak year (1931); it is not considered one of the better Best Pictures. Perhaps more impressive is that Cecil B. DeMille's The Greatest Show on Earth managed to grab the top prize in 1952 over films that are generally acknowledged as superior: The Quiet Man, High Noon, and Singin' in the Rain.
Only one James Bond film won an Oscar: Thunderball for its visual effects in 1965. Though the series is famous for its opening theme songs, only three had Best Song nominations: Live and Let Die (performed by Paul McCartney and Wings), The Spy Who Loved Me ("Nobody Does It Better," sung by Carly Simon), and For Your Eyes Only (sung by Sheena Easton, the only singer to appear on-screen during the credits). It's a shame that Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice, From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service (with Louis Armstrong's "We Have All the Time In the World"), Goldeneye, and Casino Royale (Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name") weren't considered, especially given the ridiculously weak quality of the Best Song category in recent years.
On the same topic, it is hard to imagine that none of the Beatles' original songs for A Hard Day's Night or Help! were nominated, though George Martin was nominated for his orchestral arrangements for the first film. A Best Song Score Oscar was awarded to The Beatles in 1970 for Let It Be, though unfortunately this was not a big enough incentive for the group to get back together.
And of course this blog wouldn't be complete without recognizing great films that didn't win Best Picture (even if they lost to another worthy film): Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, Saving Private Ryan, Empire of the Sun, A Few Good Men, North By Northwest, Rear Window, It's A Wonderful Life, The Passion of the Christ, The Sixth Sense, The Ten Commandments, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Any additions you'd like to make to this list? Leave comments below!
But it's March, and to a film buff like me, that means Oscar time! This period of the year always drives me nuts, and there are numerous reasons why. As usual, there are a whole lot of nominated films that I haven't yet seen, though several are on my to-do list. Then there's my irritation at the pomposity of Hollywood: they get all dressed up to award golden statuettes to...themselves, they wear ribbons to show the world that "they care" about causes (but not enough to give up any large percentage of their wealth in contributing to solutions), they decide that excellence as entertainers means that a show about awarding movies is also a political commentary, a social commentary, an emotional triumph, a grand spectacle, and a comedy routine. (And that's just the opening number.) So concerned are they with the glamor that they give themselves a red carpet to walk down, as if pretending to be something you're not makes you some kind of royalty. And yet for so many film fans, including me, Oscar night still is worth paying attention to; we love the idea that somehow recognizing excellence in film elevates the art form, and also elevates those of us who love watching movies. So here are some of my thoughts about this year's awards from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
They have expanded the Best Picture category to ten films this year, largely in reaction to the displeasure that many critics have had that popular films are often ignored by the Academy. Of the Top 25 grossing movies of all time, only six have received Best Picture nominations (*winners): Avatar (nominated this year), Titanic*, The Return of the King*, The Two Towers, The Fellowship of the Ring, and Star Wars. In the next ten top-grossing films, only this year's Up and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial got nods. The turning point seems to have been the exclusion of last year's biggest hit The Dark Knight, and so the Academy has doubled the field, and sure enough this year's list includes films like District 9 and Up that probably wouldn't have made the cut otherwise. (I was proud that some critics thought that Star Trek merited inclusion, but alas, it probably placed eleventh in the balloting.) Still, the upshot is that while more films can brag of being Best Picture nominees, only three films are considered as likely contenders: Avatar (the reigning box office champion), The Hurt Locker (a favorite of the critics that performed poorly at the box office but has won most of the important "predictive" awards, including the Producer's Guild and Director's Guild), and Inglourious Basterds (winner of the SAG award).
Interestingly, James Cameron was (deservedly) ignored in the original screenplay category for Avatar. His Best Picture-winning Titanic also was left out of this category, a rare film to win top honors while the script couldn't make the top five. You can check out my review of Avatar for a more thorough analysis, but suffice to say that while he is a visionary filmmaker who pushes the limits of technology and makes greatly entertaining movies, Cameron is lousy at writing dialogue. (He shares this trait with George Lucas, but at least Star Wars got a screenplay nomination. Woody Allen's Annie Hall deserved to beat Lucas in that category, but Star Wars should have won Best Director and Best Picture.)
I'm sorry to say I haven't seen any of the Best Actress nominees this year. Most are predicting Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side, but I'm still pulling for Carey Mulligan in An Education. This is largely because she was great as Sally Sparrow in the Hugo-winning Doctor Who episode "Blink." (For my money, that's the best time travel story EVER.) Also, I would like to have seen a Supporting Actress nomination for Diane Kruger or Melanie Laurent in Inglourious Basterds. Still, at least we can be certain that Supporting Actor nominee Christoph Waltz will walk away victorious; since the film came out critics have proclaimed the nomination a mere formality--he is responsible for one of the few convincingly evil yet charming psychopaths in film history.
Michael Giacchino should have received nominations for his musical scores for The Incredibles and Star Trek, so I hope he takes one home for Up.
Speaking of which, Up is the second animated film to get a Best Picture nomination, after Beauty and the Beast in 1991. It is the first computer-generated film to be so honored. It won't win, but it has the Best Animated Feature category, something Beauty did not have. I like to think Beauty placed a close second to Silence of the Lambs, but there's no way to prove it.
Star Trek's best hope is in the Best Makeup category, the only one where it isn't competing with Avatar. (Star Trek VI should have won this over the oft-Oscared Terminator 2 in my opinion.) I think it has the edge not only for its complex aliens, tattooed Romulans, and making Zachary Quinto look like young Leonard Nimoy, but because Rachel Nichols is hot even when she's green.
And now for some thoughts on Oscar stuff from years past:
Anthony Hopkins won Best Actor for The Silence of the Lambs despite having less screen time than Supporting Actor winner Tommy Lee Jones of The Fugitive or Supporting nominee Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense, who I think deserved to win.
Though it's often said to be the best of the series, The Empire Strikes Back did not receive a Best Picture nomination like Star Wars did. Revenge of the Sith is the only film in the series that did not get a Special Visual Effects nomination, though it certainly deserved one. It was nominated for Best Makeup. It didn't win. (In fact, none of the prequel films won an Oscar; all of the original trilogy picked up at least one.)
The Godfather Part II and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King are the only sequels to win Best Picture. (One could argue that Avatar is a futuristic sequel to Dances With Wolves.)
Cimarron, Dances With Wolves, and Unforgiven are the only Westerns to win the top award. Most critics believe Cimarron benefited from a weak year (1931); it is not considered one of the better Best Pictures. Perhaps more impressive is that Cecil B. DeMille's The Greatest Show on Earth managed to grab the top prize in 1952 over films that are generally acknowledged as superior: The Quiet Man, High Noon, and Singin' in the Rain.
Only one James Bond film won an Oscar: Thunderball for its visual effects in 1965. Though the series is famous for its opening theme songs, only three had Best Song nominations: Live and Let Die (performed by Paul McCartney and Wings), The Spy Who Loved Me ("Nobody Does It Better," sung by Carly Simon), and For Your Eyes Only (sung by Sheena Easton, the only singer to appear on-screen during the credits). It's a shame that Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice, From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service (with Louis Armstrong's "We Have All the Time In the World"), Goldeneye, and Casino Royale (Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name") weren't considered, especially given the ridiculously weak quality of the Best Song category in recent years.
On the same topic, it is hard to imagine that none of the Beatles' original songs for A Hard Day's Night or Help! were nominated, though George Martin was nominated for his orchestral arrangements for the first film. A Best Song Score Oscar was awarded to The Beatles in 1970 for Let It Be, though unfortunately this was not a big enough incentive for the group to get back together.
And of course this blog wouldn't be complete without recognizing great films that didn't win Best Picture (even if they lost to another worthy film): Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, Saving Private Ryan, Empire of the Sun, A Few Good Men, North By Northwest, Rear Window, It's A Wonderful Life, The Passion of the Christ, The Sixth Sense, The Ten Commandments, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Any additions you'd like to make to this list? Leave comments below!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
