Some more movie trailers...

A movie I've been tenatively looking forward to: The Science of Sleep. It had an interesting concept, and as a bonus is directed by Michel Gondry the director of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which I very much liked. Don't know how much of that was Kaufman's script, but I will definately be checking out this movie. Only downside is that it might seem to be more of a date movie, and I never have one of those to go to the movies with me.

Another interesting film is The Night Listener. I really like Robin Williams, and he can be especially good in serious roles, and the given plot from the trailer is at least intriguing. Might have too conventional an ending, though, but I'll most likely see it anyway.

It must be the year of "The" films that I am enjoying ;) Another magic/thriller film in The Illusionist, but with Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti. Edward Norton forever became one of my favorite actors, no matter what, due to Fight Club and Primal Fear. I can only expect great things from him here.

Might be seeing this one, but not terribly interested as of now. Babel has Brad Pitt (a plus after Fight Club and Seven) and Cate Blanchett, as well as the title actor from The Science of Sleep.

I didn't comment on it before, but I saw the trailer for Children of Men also with Miami Vice. Sure looks like an interesting concept; I especially like the twist of the world focusing on the youngest person, rather than the oldest. I did like the movie of Prizoner of Azkaban; I just hated the adaptation (if you know what I mean). So, seeing Cuaron behind this sure gives it a good level already. And just from the trailer, specifically the first minute or so, I already saw several things I liked that he shot. Clive Owen always has a very nice, gruff, look to him, and Julianne More is usually good. Michael Caine is just topping, but welcomed.

Saw the trailer for The U.S. vs. John Lennon a while ago, though didn't comment on it then (think it was with An Inconvenient Truth). Been looking forward to seeing the full film, mostly due to it's timing.

Miami Vice

Just got back from Miami Vice, and the review that I linked to last night is actually quite good. A lot of what it says carries over from my own viewing, with few exceptions.

1. Collin Ferrel isn't terrible in this film, as the review strongly implies he is. Some parts do not work, yes, but the feeling of the movie is that it's his character that doesn't work, not so much his acting. It's nothing outstanding and Oscar worthy, but it's hardly the vision aversion that the review was saying it was.

2. Jamie Foxx is practically vacant it seems. In the beginning, he's there he's present. In the end, he's there he's present. But throughout the movie, it's more like he's just milling about in the background or just standing in. His actual "useful"/"important" screen time is remarkably small I felt, though it is good. He is still fantastic in the film -- it just feels like he got a bit gypped in the editing or script importance. But there are a couple of scenes where he is simply on fire.

3. Gong Li actually I think stole the show. I don't think I had ever seen her before since I'm not the biggest fan of foreign films, but she is terrific here. Much time with Ferrel, and she I think out distances him.

4. Ok, this maybe just me, but I was getting tired of the nude shower sex scenes. There are only two that I recall, but it's two too many. They seem unnecessary and frankly make the film turn into a Cinemax low-budget soft-core porn for about 20 seconds. Sure, it's to make it seem sexy; but, c'mon, there must be better ways.

5. A lot of the imagery of the film is amazing. There are some really beautiful shots in this film. I can see why the review called it a bit of an art film feeling to it (particularly, quite strangely, in the sex scenes), but it's not too much to override the rest of the film.

6. I will say this. After Collateral, and after Miami Vice, if you ever want to do a compotent action movie to me, you have to hire the special effects crew that did the action scenes here. Not only are they very well done, and very well put together, but the actual effects of the deaths and violence is seamless. I mean there are times in films where you know exactly why you are seeing a stunt done this way -- because this was the way they had to shoot it to pull it off. That's not done here (and Collateral). There's action that is done that just makes it seem so real to be startling. Great, great action scenes.

Overall the story was decent enough, and there were some instances where it wasn't so much a "plot twist" as an instance of "Oh, I was expecting that to be a little different, but I like where this slightly shifted tangent is going."

A far better movie than I was originally expecting. I was thinking the movie was going to be utter shit, and was only going for two reasons: Michael Mann just came off of Collateral which I liked (though not entirely the ending), and Jamie Foxx was in it. But while it's not a pinnicle film and has a few flaws, it surely is above average and well worth seeing. Though I'd probably rank Collateral better (mostly story-wise), with this film having a greater ending and some far superior scenes as well.

It's movie review day!

I'm amazed. This review of Miami Vice is many things, include fairly decent. It deals with the images, the story, the plot, the acting, the flaws, and the positives of the film. Notice the difference when the review is actually -- I don't know -- long and the first third isn't bitching about DVD sales? It's not too terribly favorable to the movie, but what else was to be expected from yet another tv-show adaptation to film? Mostly predictable, and basically irrelevant to see -- but Mann does it very well, the images are great, and Farrel is mostly forgetable if not abrasive to the overall film. I'm actually impressed. A.O. Scott might just be making a comeback in decent reviews.

Scoop on the other hand is practically a review of nothing, though to be fair it does seem to be mostly on key since the movie is refered to as "nonsense" and "slack" and "clunky" the first twenty minutes. I guess it might be slided as a decent review since it's a Woody Allen comedy, but it is again short and largely frivolous (I mean there's only so many times you can care to read about the frickin' clothes in the film when it's not a period piece).

THE LARGEST STRUCTURE IN THE UNIVERSE!

(Note: Not to scale ;))

A new form of a volcano is believed to have been discovered: volcanos made by one tectonic plate sinking below another.

Terahertz radiation or T-Rays. The most common type of radiation in the universe, and the most overlooked. It's also the one of the most effective in today's world, since they can see through clothing, plastic, and even wood. Quite handy for spotting guns and explosives, wouldn't you say?

George W. Bush -- the Aristocrat. Vulgar and funny, and, sadly, probably partially true.

Nothing on the war (too much) but there was a terrible oil spill on the Lebanon coast. Spill only in the sense that the oil spilled out, after the storage tanks had been attacked.

Just look at this bullshit

This Bolten guy, is chock full of crap it seems. Or at least his puppet masters are. He keeps saying that it's a "delicate balance" to be struck. Yeah, it is, and Bush's balance makes no sense. It's a delicate balance, that a 5 year old could make.

When a couple wants in-vitro fertilization, they collect sperm, they collect ovum, and they fertilize the eggs with the sperm. Basic human bilogy, just taking place outside (this is the fun sex part inside a woman). Thing is, most couples want one child. I'm not even sure if they can do more at one time. I don't see why not, but I'm not a specialist in this. I've just taken some basic damn science classes.

Obviously, they've fertilized more eggs than will be used. So, the rest are discarded. Those discarded embryos are the ones that scientists want to take, and use, to gather stem cells to use for research. Bush is saying that to do so is murder, since those cells (which are 100x smaller than this coming period) are a person and deserve protection. They're not. Just like each of my skin cells is not an individual person, those cells are not a person. They're just cells. This is one of the benefits of actually knowing and believing in science, versus thinking there might be some doubt on whether evolution is a fact of the world.

But the key point is that the cells are going to be discarded. They'll not be put on hold to be used by other couples. They're waste. They're the cellular rejects. Just like your urine and stool samples, they're not going to be taken home and cared for. Scientists want to take these rejected cells, those that will simply just be tossed away like trash, and use them to further research to help find cures to multitudes of diseases.

Instead, there's a president vetoing the federal funding for such life-saving work by either having such an incomptent misunderstanding of the issue and what it entials. Or, much more likely, he knows full well what is going on and using it for nothing but political manipulation. This is what you get fundamentalists that believe this bullshit. You won't get a ban on gay marriage written into the Constitution; you won't get belief in God replacing rational, logical, observable science. You'll get a delay in ground-breaking, profitable, and morally necessary research for at least a year if not possibly a couple of years. Hope you're happy, you self-centered fucks.

But if you do it privately, no qualms. He could outlaw in-vitro fertilization completely, and draw that moral line where it makes consistant sense. But he doesn't. He could ban entirely the funding for stem cell research. But he doesn't. He doesn't do these things because this is nothing more than a political move, and manipulating the hopes of people's present and future lives. It's dispicable.

Oh, and no matter how "cute" or "moving" the photo-op by Bush was, it's still a fucking ridiculous thing to do. And no matter how you wash his statements, good ol' Karl wasn't trying to get at a point to push for alternative to embryonic stem cells -- he was flat out lying. But keep repeating what you've been told like a good puppet, and as if you can change the result you get by doing the same bullshit story. Adult stem cells are a viable future, and show lots of promise, no doubt about it. But not anywhere near the promise of embryonic stem cells, due to simple understanding of what's involved. Adult stem cells are differentiated; embryonic stem cells are not. You can do more with embryonic stem cells than adult. Copping out behind "I'm not a scientist" doesn't cut it -- a biology teacher can consult you on this and tell you how full of crap you are.

Oh, and did I mention that it's just a bit of a double standard or hypocritical to be saying you're for the defense of a group of a 100 or so cells (except if funded privately), when we the taxpayer (the one Bush is protecting, of course) have already funded the destruction of 50,000 lives and counting? They're lives in Iraq, but is that supposed to make a difference? Great culture Bush. Great culture.

And on a final tip off: Louise Brown was born July 25th, 1978. She was the first test-tube baby (IE: in-vitro fertilization).

Some links

Remember what I said about Bolton? Here's more on why he needs to be removed.

The Bush administration is not popular at the United Nations, where it is often perceived as disdainful of diplomacy, and its policies as heedless of the effects on others and single-minded in the willful assertion of American interests. By extension, then, many diplomats say they see Mr. Bolton as a stand-in for the arrogance of the administration itself.

But diplomats focus particularly on an area with less evidence of instructions from Washington and more of Mr. Bolton's personal touch, the mission that he has described as his priority: overhauling the institution�s discredited management. Envoys say he has in fact endangered that effort by alienating traditional allies. They say he combatively asserts American leadership, contests procedures at the mannerly, rules-bound United Nations and then shrugs off the organization when it does not follow his lead.

Hell, I praise other nations for trying to work with this asshole.

I said I wasn't going to comment on the Isreali conflict, and this isn't. But it is a related tangent. In Iran, people are getting discontent due to a lot of their money heading to Hezbollah and Palestine. They're thinking a rational thing: help the people solve their problems (which seem to be growing more and more), like a government is supposed to, instead of trying to help someone else first (and a terrorist organization at that).

I've had my notes on my Too-Young Sitters theory for a few days now, and have just been mulling them over for a bit, trying to work out what I wish to discuss and some of the more specific points. I'll probably have an outline done by today or at the very least started on with a majority of points. I only have a few searches left, so I'll probably have to wait till the end of the month to truly start writing large sections of it. However, quite a number of my quotes I will need can come from my Sheriam's Beatings theory, and I can write out more that are not so it's possible I will begin before August.

The Importance of Framing

This artcle on the Specter bill regarding the NSA wiretapping is a very good document, as well as being very short by standards.

A Senate surveillance bill personally negotiated by President Bush and Vice President Cheney (1) ran into immediate trouble this week, as Democrats and other critics attacked the proposal while key GOP leaders in the House endorsed a different bill on the same topic.

The Senate legislation, drafted during negotiations between the White House and Sen. Arlen Specter(R-Pa.), would allow the administration to submit the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program to a secret intelligence court for review of its legality.

The proposal was billed as a rare and noteworthy compromise by the administration when unveiled last week. But the legislation quickly came under attack from Democrats and many national security experts, who said it would actually give the government greater powers to spy on Americans without court oversight (2).

First, it shows the level of involvement -- this is coming from the President and Vice President themselves, and as was reported before it was Bush himself that is blocking an investigation into the program. It's the President and Cheney that are the ones defining this bill, not Specter.

Second, it dismisses entirely what was reported before (and what I stupidly believed): this is not a "compromise" or a case of the Administration "giving in" to the demands of Specter. This is the President getting every single thing he wanted, and more. This is Specter playing bitch to the Administration, while at the same time fucking oversight into oblivion.

And it get's worse for us, better for the article:

Specter's proposal would, among other things, allow the transfer of all pending lawsuits to a secret FISA appeals court that could throw the cases out for "any reason." (3)(4) The bill would also allow -- but not require -- the administration to seek legal approval for the NSA program from another secret court that administers FISA.

The legislation also would lengthen the amount of time the government could spy on alleged terrorism suspects before receiving warrants (5), and would explicitly affirm the president's "constitutional authority" to conduct spying programs on his own. (6)

Specter defended the proposal during a committee hearing on Tuesday, calling the agreement with Bush "a major breakthrough" that included necessary but acceptable compromises. He also argued that the language acknowledging Bush's legal authority has no real impact but was insisted on by White House negotiators.

Beginning with the end, the final paragraph is nothing but total bullshit trying to wash this of the obvious. These aren't "necessary" compromises, and if they are this guy doesn't know how to negotiate for shit.

Third, the proposal allows all the court cases in the nation -- the ones not being tossed out already by "state secrets" -- to be consolidated under the FISA court, and, though the article does not say this, those cases could not be released without approval by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general. Obviously, they'd never approve, so the cases would never see the light of day. It's a jurisdicational black hole. We'd never see their decisions, never know their effect, and even if the program was deemed "unconstitutional" we'd just never know.

Fourth, this is doing nothing but increasing power. Already a vast number of lawsuits against the program and it's adherents have been closed due to "state secrets" privilage I refered to. This is just saying that what would come out in the case would be damaging to national security, so they obviously cannot do the case. It's been rarely used, except by this Administration, which has used it numerous times. Already two court cases have been rejecting the state secrets excuse, and are going ahead with the cases. One of the cases is this one. What the bill would do, is take the case to FISA, and absolutely any excuse, beyond the already very broad excuse of state secrets, would do with dismissing the case. And again we would never know if it was, or why.

Fifth, this really isn't too much of a problem, just showcasing how much of a giveaway to Bush this really is. This is expanding the time for needing a FISA warrent. I'd actually might be perfectly fine with this part, but with everything else, this can be the only true "necessary compromise" that deserves the name. The rest is a pure fuck fest.

Sixth, this sentence is vague to me, but from what I've seen elsewhere of the bill I can only gather that this is refering to the retro-active pardoning of what occured. This program has been illegal since it's inception in 2001. A bill would make it now legal to do what occured then. Everything else before is still illegal. The retro-active pardoning would do away with that, essentially saying "No harm, no foul" when there has been plenty of both.

Great article, shitty topic, but needs to get out.

The Veto

It sounds like a book title. Or a character nickname for an assassain (actually, that sounds really cool). But no, it's regarding a single presidential veto. George W. Bush's first veto. It took him nearly 6 full years, but he finally did it -- he blocked legislation because he cares oh so much. What was it about? Research expansion for embryonic stem cell research. Why did he block it? Because he thought it was immoral. He said for the first time that taxpayers would be funding the destruction of a human life, and he finds that disgusting.

Ignoring the first clue that this is bullshit (since when has Bush given a damn about taxpayers, except the top 1% of those taxpayers?), it's easy to see that Bush is either an idiot, doesn't have all the facts, is playing to his base, or is being completely find with just ignoring reality. Well, Bush isn't an idiot. Not all the time. He knows somewhat what he is doing; or at least the people that truly control him do. Does he have all the facts? Maybe not.

This isn't the destruction of a human life. Stem cell research is only done with cells that are already going to be destroyed. You don't use them for research, they go into the trash. It's not that doctors are taking healthy pregnant women, forcing their legs open, and tearing out their children to harvest these cells. They're already waste; in a sense it's just recycling the good use that they can be.

And it's fantastic use. Diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and lets not for cancer. You think of a disease in the world, and it's very possible that research in stem cells can eradicate it, cure it, or be a treatment for it. Over 75% of American's know this. But apparently the president doesn't know this, or ignores it. Or, he's just playing to his base. Which would make sense of this bit of knowledge:

SNOW: The president will, however, before he delivers remarks this afternoon, veto the Castle bill.

Here’s how it works, because I know a lot of you have had questions. There will be no photographers, no ceremony. What the president will do is, in his office, he will sign a veto message, he will hand it to a clerk, who will convey it to a clerk of the House, and then you go through the formalities of announcing a message from the president, and at some point the House will vote on the veto.

QUESTION: Is there a reason why he’s not having photographers in, at least?

SNOW: Because he doesn’t feel it’s appropriate. He’s signing a veto.

Photographers for god knows how many bills he has signed -- but not for his first veto of an obviously so important topic to Bush, as he make sit out to be? He wants to hide this. He knows this is a mainstream and well accepted idea, and only his base will be helped by it. That's why there are no photos or a ceremony. Politics with facts, politics with who knows how many lives, and all for points and to help people get re-elected.

Some terrible shit going on here

I know little of the economy. I sometimes have to take a second to figure out real-world examples in my head to get inflation right. But I know bullshit when I see it. This most certainly is bullshit.

White House Trims FY 2006 Budget Deficit Forecast to $296 Bln

July 11 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration cut its estimate of this year's budget deficit by 30 percent to $296 billion amid a surge in tax collections from corporations and wealthy individuals, a White House spokesman said.

The projected shortfall is down from the $423 billion deficit the White House forecast five months ago and represents 2.3 percent of GDP, Press Secretary Tony Snow said. Last year's deficit was $318 billion.

President George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress likely will point to the decline as they argue that tax cuts enacted in Bush's first term are benefiting the economy and are a reason for voters to maintain the party's majorities in the House and Senate in the November elections.

Ok, ok. 296 billion dollar deficit, but it's 30% lower than their projections earlier this year. Good job for that.

Except, that this is not a good job. This is most likely inflating projections to later claim good work for tax cuts for the rich. What does 296 billion dollars in deficit get you? Spot number four on the all time biggest deficits:

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

When Bush came into office he had a surplus of 284 billion dollars, as well. We're celebrating that only one of are testicles have been removed, not two. Oh, thank you. I'm so relieved that myself, and/or my children or grandchildren, will only have to pay off 296 billion dollars for this year alone. Thank you!

Dead Man's Chest

The first Pirates was an amazingly surprising movie to me, since I went in being practically dragged. I don't even remember seeing the full length trailer for the movie, if I ever did, but the teaser for it I thought was shit and it was going to be just an over puffed piece of crap. So, I was amazed that I went to see one of my favorite movies of 2003 expecting it to be utterly terrible, as well as one of my favorite Johnny Depp roles (though to be honest, he is pretty much good in anything -- damn him).

Needless to say, I, like millions of others, had high expectations for Dead Man's Chest. Same actors, same director, same writers, same producers -- there didn't seem to be a damn thing I could see to make me complain about this movie. If it sucked, it was all that they couldn't deliver twice.

It goes without saying that they did deliver quite well. My expectations were a little too high, I will admit, but it wasn't a Matrix Reloaded type of expectations and the big let down (though even that wasn't too much, but more than Pirates). The way that I frame it is: it is not as good as the first Pirates, however, it is damn close to being the same level.

I've already said that the New York Times review was complete shit -- my friend Vinnie, whose opinions on films I highly respect, was in complete agreement with me. Not only did they bash the movie, they did it vaguely without even reviewing the fucking movie. So, I will do what they are paid to do.

The movie is a bit rocky at the start, I do agree (though the Times didn't say that; that was a local reviewer). For the first roughly 7 minutes it doesn't quite seem like the Pirates we know and love. Maybe it's the start right at the ruined wedding of Elizabeth and Will, instead of where we are expecting with actually seeing what occured. This I feel is do what a lot of people complain did not happen: save length. As well, it would've been cliche. While more original, and time sharing, it is a bit hard to settle so to speak, but it only lasts until we first meet again with Jack Sparrow. From then on, whatever people say about the length, the movie doesn't feel long in the slightest. I've very impressed in how both Superman Returns and Dead Man's Chest were both roughly the same length (2:45; 2:40) yet did not feel that length in the slightest.

The story sometimes is a bit... unpolished compared to the first, and there seem to be far fewer great one-liner jokes than in the first. Nearly every other line by Depp is great in the first; here, it's roughly every 5 or 6. Still plenty of good jokes, but I was spending more time watching the movie instead of laughing like crazy I was with the first. It's honestly not a big drop for me. It's amazing I was able to comprehend the first movie with what I was laughing at, but with this the plot was much more involving for me (though it was in the first as well; damn, there are so few genuine contrasts with this film to the first).

Like the first film, the plot is very dense, yet you can easily follow it (as contradicting that sounds with my statements above). There are still a lot of allegiance switches in this film, like the first, and there is an especially long scene that covers a whole bunch of ground that is at the same time a multi-pronged attack by upwards of 35 people at once or more, a rolling adventure, great dialogue, great action work, and contains those switches of allegiance I was talking about.

But, it is incomplete. Yes, there is a dramatic leave off at the end. Oh well. Who honestly was not expecting it to end on an unfinished note when we know there is a third movie coming out next Memorial Day? This movie has a definite beginning, middle, and end -- but it's not a complete end. Think of it as an end in Martin's books. Yes, it's the ending for that book, and you soooo desire more right now!... But, it's not the end. More is coming.

The special effects at times can both seem completely spectacular, and also have a tone of that some parts in some shots needed to be done a little bit better. It's so hard to describe, but it seemed so apparent to me. Some tentacles of the kraken needed to be shaded more for what seemed correct lighting here, and there. But the highlight of the CGI has to be Davey Jone's beard -- it looks absolutely perfect and will definitely be a remarked about thing for the movie for a while. There are many, many scenes where the special effects are shown to their glory, and none of them seem to be exploitative -- we're doing this just to do it, like quite a few films now a days.

Johnny Depp is of course fantastic as Jack Sparrow. It's simply amazing how natural he looks in this character that it just makes you think, "Of course that's Jack Sparrow. It's Johnny Depp!" He's not as strong as he was in the first film, primarily because I feel he wasn't in it enough. He's in a significant portion, but at the end, it makes you think back and realize that it seems they gypped him out of some screen time. But no matter how much time he's on screen, it's just natural -- that's Johnny Depp; that's Jack Sparrow.

Bloom I honestly feel just got short changed. His role didn't give him too much to do, though he did do quite a lot with it. He's got good talent in a film like this, and hardly is out acted by a piece of wood. He's not show stealing great, but he's more than decent.

Knightly is very well suited for her role of course, because as being British she of course can play an uppity higher living person, and as a known tomboy she even looks natural crewing a ship. There's no swipe at her implied here -- like Bloom she does more than decent, and like Depp she just seems natural here. No criticism to a natural role.

Davey Jones, played by Bill Nighy, seems somewhat kept back in this to me. Undoubtedly he will factor far more into this in the third movie, but he still did a far above average performance.

The rest of the cast is again more than decent in just about all walks, from smaller roles that got a bit more expanded here, to older roles that have come back for more in changed ways. There is no problem with the acting by any of the cast in my opinion.

The only downside I feel is this: it makes you so damn impatient for the next film. It's hardly the "bullying" of that the Times claimed. You have a vested interest in it. If you liked the first, of course you will see the second. If you didn't, you won't. If you liked the second, you of course will see the third. If you didn't, you won't. There's no bullying -- it's simply knowing you will experience a good time. And that's all that this film is and all it needs to be: a very good god damn time. Yarghhhh! I want me a captain's hat now more than ever.

And no, if you're wondering, I wasn't planning vengeance on anyone. The quote was more to showcase the simple fact I've observed (and many others have observed) through time: intelligence is favored more over chance. Just not truly in the Wheel of Time. Or at least nearly as much.

Another day

Overall my day was pretty good. I got some more work done on my theory, watched some television, got to have one of my favorite dinners (homemade pizza), then got to see the new show Psych on USA, and finally got to round out the evening with watching Black Books again (though different episode obviously). Black Books was of course good. Psych was alright, but it seemed to include a lot of jokes that didn't work with me, but more than half I would say did. Only thing I objected to is some of the techniques they used in the show, and the frequency of the main one. Get's old very quickly for a zoom in, and flash outlining the object that is "focused." I have a bit of indignitude attached to it as well; I may not be able to put together what the character is thinking regarding it, but you can frame the objects far better without having to do flashes and highlights on the specific object as if I could've never ever known what it was. Maybe that's a bit undeserved, but it did just rub me the wrong way.

But Bush apparently is frustrated by diplomacy, yet again. Helps to actually know how to do it to not be frustrated by it.

It must be the day against gays. It's not surprising that Georgia ruled that banning gay marraige was constitutional. It's utterly stupid, and inherently discriminatory, which goes against the entire point of the Constituion. But it's not surprising (sadly).

It is a shock, however, that New York addressed the same topic and voted the same way (though not on a ban). Especially considering they listed homosexuality as a preference, not an orientation.

What is with the New York Times and putting out shit movie reviews? This one about Pirates:

It is the second episode in what will be at least a trilogy — the third installment is scheduled for release next summer — and full appreciation of its whirligig plot will depend on thorough acquaintance with the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" picture, conveniently available for purchase on DVD. And since "Dead Man's Chest" brazenly dispenses with the convention of an ending — it's pretty much all middle — you will, by virtue of buying that ticket, have committed yourself to buying another one a year from now if you're the least bit curious about how the whole thing turns out. By then, chances are good that you will have forgotten most of what happened in "Dead Man's Chest," so you'll have another disc to add to the shopping cart.

So, to begin (this is the second paragraph after all) they're bitching about it being a sequel. "Thorough acquaintance" with the first film? You mean, you have to see the first to understand the second? Who would've fucking thought that?! I wanted to see Terminator 2, but I was so confused. Maybe I should've seen Terminator. By definition a sequel depends on knowledge of the first film (though some have surely come close to being exceptions).

"Conveniently" on DVD? Of course it's convenient -- it's modern distribution of movies, you twit. It would be inconvenient if it was on VHS, since the quality is terrible in comparison, the technology is outdated, and it's far from the most popular medium. Or maybe it's about timing? Yeah, I never expect movies that were out just over three years ago to be on DVD. No, never. Or maybe it's the opposite thing -- you know, being pissed off, like the majority of people, when DVDs aren't out of the movie within a year if not less. This is only added in that the reviewer is apparently very upset that some people want to go and buy a DVD to watch a movie again and again. Oh no, they'll buy another DVD. Heaven's to betsy!

Finally, this is nothing but a complete swipe at movie goers. Let me translate: "You're too fucking stupid to keep a plot in your head for more than three hours, let alone three years, so you're completely hopeless in fathoming this at a later time." Gee, thanks. We can't all compete with you, oh dear reviewer. I mean we only understand the marketing of DVDs at all....

But hey, this isn't about that, right? It's about fun. You're there to have fun. Fun for the family. Fun for the kids. Fun for everyone. So shut up and have fun.

And you probably will, even if it's hard to shake the feeling that you've been bullied into it.

Hmm, bullied into making a choice? By what? Advertising? Or people's repetitive need to keep seeing a movie again and again because they can't retain it, as you are more than clearly stating? There's no bullying here -- people enjoyed the first; they have high expectations for the second. If they enjoyed the first, of course they will see the second. There's not a reason against it until they see it to know if it is crap. The same cast, the same writers, the same producers, the same director -- it's just a new script. The only bullying this stinks of is the bullying done by editors clamouring for a review of this film, and forcing their reviewers to sit through it against their will. I'm just getting the distinct impression that this occured here. Maybe A.O. Scott would rather watch pretentious modern art exhibits and delude himself into thinking he is important because he can't "bring himself down" to the level of people who he believes watch these films (repeatedly of course, due to low memory retention).

Oh, and now onto the movie....

Knightly -- pretty and plucky Brit. Bloom -- outstaged by wood. Depp -- surprisingly noncommital.

Wow, what a review. The biggest actor of the film has no comments about his performance. None. Except that Jack Sparrow seems a cartoonish character. Jee, who would've expected that coming from Disney, and played in a classic floopie way by Johnny Depp? What a completely shit review.

An object at the center of a supernova sure seems like a neutron star, but with one exception: it rotates thousands of times too slow given it's age. One explanation is that it might be a magnetar (a term wholly unknown to me before), but even that is too fast for what is seen here.

Some people want English to become phonetic. This is just plain laziness being rewarded. I can't spell every single word in the English language easily -- I take pride in that I'm continually learning to spell correctly new words that are hard. Color and honor being spelt the way they are is simple: it's color and honor the way people pronounce it. There is no fucking U. But thru is just giving a failing job a passing grade. The use of this weird spelling is very nice in the article -- but gets annoying in that they use it almost throughout. Also, just think of how Scrabble will be changed. You couldn't get a word with a 170 points anymore!

Progress is progress. I wrote a few more sections today, and feel I'm over 60% done already. Believe I'm at around 27 or 28 pages now (though honestly I might be off by 3 or 4 pages more). I did a tally of things I still need to incorporate or expand on and that currently runs at 8 topics, some of which will require quite some time, and a few which might take moments. But no work until at least tomorrow afternoon -- it's pirate time.

Some links and an update

As I'm sure is big news all over the world!... Ken Lay died today. Of a heart attack. Ok, crazy conspiracy time, with my cat in my lap ready to go!... Alright, heart attacks and strokes are the subject of the CIA, so Lay had secrets he was going to squeel for a reduced sentence, probably involving ties to the Bush White House, more than likely to Dick Cheney, so Halliburton is involved. I got it, Halliburton is going to go belly up, depleting our contractors in Iraq, meaning they will be out of a job and little more than mercenaries that have hard hats. They're going to flee over the border into Iran, where they will shake up the government with their radical belief of asking bottom prices for shitty work. Of course! Ken Lay's death was a direct provocation to topple the Iran regime. Oh, this is bigggg!...

Bush is now 60. Maybe now with his age being so much on his mind he doesn't want to kill of social security so he can get some of the benefits for it -- even if he is already rich. "It's as if somehow he has psychologically not allowed the burdens to fully get to him." That's called insularism -- as in, he lives in a bubble of friends. But I am glad he's so physically fit. Now if only he was mentally fit for the job, we'd have the greatest president on our hands instead of the worst.

I think the best way to describe my attitude (something that I have been trying to do for years) is certainly "wry." And probably a "sardonic" in there. And if I ever have anything worth writing an autobiography about, I figured the title: "The Eclectic Amalgamation." Eh, maybe. Long ways off.

There's also a very important lesson I heard in a quote today: "There's a difference between making a mistake, and being incompotent." I do always try to remember that.

Microsoft is planning their own version of an iPod. It would have wireless Internet capablities. They're going to sink more money into creating their own product, instead of having Sony or Samsung make it, and just use their software. And, more likely, it will be shit. If I enjoyed listening to music through headphones, and didn't mind people overhearing my music and being likely to yell at me to turn it down, and if the damn things weren't so ubiquitous already, I would consider getting an iPod. But I really don't see the attraction.

North Korea might be a problem for Bush's legacy. Right... Like that will top the list. Maybe if their missles work, and they launch a nuke and it hits the US, then it might. But there are some far graver concerns for his legacy than North Korea. Still have to deal with them, but man oh man, is that misguided to say.

The Sci-Fi design competition. Some really amazing things could be done with this fabric. I'm sure the military will be looking very closely at it, if they're not already moving onto the next things 10 years down the line.

Hybrid trees could bring new life to cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and elsewhere.

As if global warming didn't do enough to screw with things, it also creates more and stronger forest fires. Just look at the side list for what we do see already occuring, and who knows what else could be added soon. Oh, and you know, forests are actually what get rid of carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. Funny enough, when they burn, they become yet anther source of carbon dioxide.

But be at ease, George Bush is solving global warming. If I may be so bold, I'll translate his inane comments. I'm solving this problem, but it's not a problem it's a debate remember, but I am solving this problem through magical powers. You know casting yourself as the hero of a story you don't even believe in, and that it took you 5 years to even acknowledge, and when your first press secretary explained that you believe it's an American way of life to be abundant in gasoline, is just plain low.

And the potential to transplant capillaries into patients. By using regular cells that form the vessels (the same flat cells that line your heart) and (what else?) neural stem cells. They form tubes on their own. Very interesting merging of medical science, and engineering.

Conservative Calderon is declared the winner of the Mexican presidential election; the results will be challenged. The victory was less than a percentage point, 244,000 votes (.58%). So even if he wins, he's already a weak president in a divided country.

Google is now a verb in the dictionary. The definition: "to use the Google search engine to obtain information... on the World Wide Web." As in, "Let me google that." It only took 5 years from first reported usage to being in the dictionary -- one of the fastest yet. While it's interesting to see the noting of this endangering the legal protection of it's trademark, call me an optimist to see it not happening to refer to just "search." Also, "spyware" was added -- boy, talk about a showing of contrasts.

Humans and primates are hardly unique. Mice have empathy as well.

And so it goes is the best way to describe my theory at this point. I'm up to I believe 26 or 27 pages now, and have finished some major sections just today. I'm still pretty much just working on sections and then writing them and will figure out the way to best present the order later. I've still got to refine for more specific examples from my quote notes, but I am beginning to realize how much work I did compiling that list when I will not be using most of it after all. I'm sure I'll use a great deal; however, a lot of it does seem to be laying on the sidelines waiting, waiting. It's come in handy a bit in the sections I did today, but not nearly as much as I thought it would. Alas, work continues on it. And then re-working. And then maybe some changes made. And then more working probably. But it will be finished! Hopefully, and I do hate to make dates, by the end of next week at the very latest. Then who knows how long until Tam posts it on the main site -- my other two are still waiting.

Dispicable

How the hell do people believe this bullshit?

As the congregation of the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church looked on and its pastor, Apostle Alton R. Williams, presided, a brown shroud much like a burqa was pulled away to reveal a giant statue of the Lady, but with the Ten Commandments under one arm and "Jehovah" inscribed on her crown.

And in place of a torch, she held aloft a large gold cross, as if to ward off the pawnshops, the car dealerships and the discount furniture outlets at the busy corner of Kirby Parkway and Winchester that is her home. A single tear graced her cheek.

...

The Statue of Liberation Through Christ, as she is called, stands 72 feet tall from the base of her pedestal to the tip of her cross. She was the idea of Mr. Williams, a very successful pastor whose church, World Overcomers, qualifies as mega: it has a school, a bowling alley, a roller rink, a bookstore and, he said, 12,000 members.

...

The statue, inspired by a Memphis church that has three giant crosses, strikes him as "a creative means of just really letting people know that God is the foundation of our nation," he said.

...

In "The Meaning of the Statue of Liberation Through Christ: Reconnecting Patriotism With Christianity," he explains that the teardrop on his Lady is God's response to what he calls the nation's ills, including legalized abortion, a lack of prayer in schools and the country's "promotion of expressions of New Age, Wicca, secularism and humanism." In another book, he said Hurricane Katrina was retribution for New Orleans's embrace of sin.

Mr. Williams said his statue's essential point was that Christianity should be the guiding ethos of the nation. But because the church he leads is predominantly black, as is he, there is an added dimension to the message.

...

"I decree the spirit of conviction on this intersection," Mr. Williams boomed from a podium decorated with red, white and blue bunting. "This statue proves that Jesus Christ is Lord over America, he is Lord over Tennessee, he is Lord over Memphis."

God is not the foundation of the United States. God is not what is being undermined by George Bush (though if it was, I'm sure his ratings would be improved). The foundation of our nation is the Declaration of Independance, and the Constitution. How about the preamble of the Declaration?

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. -- Wikipedia

Now, a moron my look at this and say "Well, that just proves my point. It says 'by their Creator.'" But that is not the foundation of our nation. The foundation is the belief in unalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness. God doesn't factor into this at all except to say "You have these." The foundation of the United States isn't "We believe in Jesus."

Or how about the preamble to the Constitution?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. -- Wikipedia

The preamble doesn't grant anything nor inhibit it -- it just states the reasons for making the Constitution. Amazingly, there's no "Jesus Christ," "God," or even "Creator" there. Maybe because the nation was not founded about, for, or by "God" or "Jesus Christ."

Jeez...

This is one terrible review of Superman Returns. Not that they give a bad review of the film -- I think -- but... they don't really discuss the movie! They're tossing around needlessly long words, and wondering if Superman is gay more than reviewing the fucking movie. And then at the end, the reviewer calls this a B-movie that's just been hyped. Great -- how about discussing why actually, instead of trying to confuse any readers to give the illusion that you're point is somehow superior?

Given similar education, both men and women are equally skilled at navigating the internet, but women rate themselves worse then men. From what they briefly outlined as their test, I'd probably label myself an expert, but more than likely whatever criteria was just below that.

Spur of the moment: Man, I absolutely hate this. I cannot correctly whistle. No idea why, but I suck in air instead to whistle, rather than blow it out. As stupidly as it sounds, for some reason in middle school I was picked on for this. Any other reason besides kids are vicious assholes is way beyond my understanding. But there are times when I can actually whistle normally for a few seconds. But everytime I'm not trying to whistle. So, of course I never think of it until I just realized I did it. Then, it's gone. Wouldn't have even thought of putting this here if it didn't just happen. Call it a floopie section.

By 2020, 1/3rd of Shanghai's population will be over 59. Not good for a country that already has a bad pension system. The city is leading one of the biggest democraphic changes ever seen, and will greatly impact whether China can remain the ultimate source of cheap labor due to the strains on the economy from manpower shortages.