The Bigger We Are...

   ...The dumber we fall.
   I have a theory.  And this theory is based on the simple premise that history repeats itself.  If you look back, you should see that every empire, every huge republic to this point has gone to a very similar cycle: rapid growth, extreme prosperity and strength, complacency, and ultimately decline.  America is no different.  Once we established ourselves, we rapidly became one of the strongest and richest country's in the world.  However, if we're not careful, we're going to go down the same road as Rome, as Japan, as all of those other empires who crashed and burned.
   Take a listen to this.  I'll wait.  A special thanks to my friend Ashley for sending that to me.  Okay, got it?  Are you amazed?  You should be.  Are you surprised?  You shouldn't be.  Just in case you didn't know, Obama doesn't just snap his fingers and create money.  It comes from you, me, all of us who pay taxes.  And that money gets dumped right back onto morons like that caller, who not only have no idea why things are so easy, but aren't even greatful for the fact that they don't have to work and they STILL somehow get paid.  I'd be willing to bet this woman is overfed, and has no intentions of finding another job.  She, like so many other Americans, has discovered that you can get away with almost anything in this country now... and that doing less work actually pays off more for you in the end.  See, America has gone through the growth and strengthening phase, and unfortunately we're now on the downward spiral of history.  But why?  Why are we failing just like everyone else... and more importantly, can we stop it?
   First think about why we're failing.  The main problem we've run into here in this country is complacency.  Things have gotten so easy that, compared to past generations, no one has had to even lift a finger to get things done.  America has grown to rely on other countries to produce our goods, while we manage them from here.  We are an import-reliant country, meaning that if suddenly there were no other countries in the world to produce the goods we need, we would be screwed.
   And that unfortunately will be our downfall.  So many people in this country are so ignorant, so simple-minded, and so not-driven now, that we can't even stand on our own two legs.  I hear a lot of people complain about how the United States is a babysitter for the rest of the country and how we need to focus more on ourselves... well, we can't really do that.  Many of those countries that we "babysit" are actually providing the goods that we need every single day.  The only thing we can give them is money, which they in turn use to produce more goods.  It's a cycle, and if we suddenly stopped giving them money, they wouldn't be able to produce, and America would be on it's own.  "Great!" you might say, but you would be wrong.
   My question is, how did this happen?  How did America go from a country that prided itself on its self-reliance, to a country that can't even take a dump without the help of a foreign country?  Where and when did this change take place?  The obvious answer is Socialism, but really it's more complicated than that.  I think Capitalism is just as much to blame.  On the Socialist side, you've got Welfare.  The idea that every single person should be able to make a living, regardless of whether or not he's working, is just ridiculous.  I've complained plenty about welfare, but it really is a major driving force in why so many people in this country are ignorant, lazy bastards who think they're entitled to something that they very clearly are not.  But don't forget about the capitalists.  In our quest to make more money and spend less, to squeeze every last cent out of every last thing we make, we've outsourced so much of our labor and materials that you can't even call a Chevy an "American" car anymore.  Chances are, more of that vehicle was made in Mexico than America, and chances are more of that Toyota you see on the road was made here in the States than anywhere else.  Our greed has also contributed to getting us to this point.
   I will never forget the days after 9/11 for a lot of reasons, but a big reason is because for the first time since I've been alive, I felt like all of us Americans were on the same side.  For just a few weeks we all set our differences aside and had a "fuck the world" mentality that really made me proud of our country.  I thought to myself, this is what it must have been like to live in America in the 30's.  This is how it was when people felt a certain pride when "buying american."  This is what our country has lost over the years.  Of course, it faded, and soon we were back to watching Perez Hilton make a mockery of humans everywhere.  Sadly, the only way we're going to save this country is if we can get that mentality back.
   This is a two-pronged solution.  First, we all need to start taking responsibility for ourselves.  We need to realize that there's no safety net out there, there's no one to catch us if we fall, except for ourselves... and we need to be confident enough in ourselves to know that if we DO fall, we can make it right on our own without anyone else's help.  If that means getting rid of welfare altogether, so be it.  It certainly would save this country a lot of money.  And if it means that some people succeed and others don't, or that some people do better for themselves than others, so be it.  Those who don't do as well should strive to do better, not expect the government to step in and level the playing field.  On the other hand, people need to come back to reality and accept that we, as Americans, are all on the same team.  Of course American-made things are going to cost more... you get what you pay for.  Instead of sending that factory to Mexico to save some money, why not keep it here and take pride in the fact that you can still be rich and make a great product?  Instead of buying a toy for your kid that was made in China (most likely using Lead or some other kind of poisonous material), why don't you spend an extra dollar and buy an American-made toy that will help an employee of that toy company keep his job?  Why do we constantly try to screw each other over to get a leg up, when we could instead all try to help each other out knowing that in the end, it helps us as well?  And notice that in neither of these solutions is government involved (other than getting OUT).  Government cannot solve this problem, it's not designed to.  WE are the only ones who can do this, and it's our duty to make it happen.
   I guarantee you if we do these two simple things, America will return to greatness.  We will buck the trend and stop our downfall mid-fall.  We will turn ourselves around and get back on top of this world where we belong.  If we DON'T stop this right now, at the very worst we will be invaded or bought by another country (ahem, China anyone?), or at the very least, we will wind up breaking this country into smaller, more manageable pieces, with those of us who know what needs to be done in one part, and those who think money comes from nowhere in another part.  How long do you think that'll last before all out war?  It's going to be an interesting, messy future.  Assuming the world doesn't end in 2012.

All Talk and No Walk
   Our President made a surprising Prime Time speech the other night, all about "the worst natural disaster in this nation's history" (the oil spill).  He made a big to-do about how BP will pay for everything they've done, including damages to those people who have suffered along the coast.  He made it clear that he would hold BP reponsible until every last drop of oil was sucked up.  He also said that from the beginning, he's been working to solve this problem and get us all back to normal.  Oh yeah?
   Perhaps you don't recall anymore (since the speech was so mesmerizing I guess), but Obama and his crew were NOWHERE to be found at the beginning of this mess.  It wasn't until weeks into this that anyone from the government even looked in the gulf's direction.  And even then, there was almost no activity up there.  Say what you will about how much (if at all) the government should be involved in this whole thing... I'm just trying to point out that they weren't here.
   And sadly, that exposes what this Oval Office address really was: a PR move.  Obama for the first time is seeing some pretty serious decline in his approval ratings, and I'm sure his cronies freaked.  I mean, when it gets to the point where the (liberal) network news is telling you that maybe the (liberal) President should have done more to be present in this huge disaster... it's time to do something right?  Well, they did.  And I will say that Obama is a fantastic speaker, as I've said from day one.  But when you really drill down into his speech, what was actually said?
   The only actual actionable items that I heard come out of that address were that he's going to freeze deep-water drilling for six months... and that he's going to look into more regulation for oil companies who drill offshore.  Now both of these are terrible ideas, but I'm going to leave that alone for now.  Instead I'm going to try to figure out why he then proceeded to go on for almost 20 minutes posturing and filling us all with hot air about how he's been there from the beginning and how you can count on him to make sure BP doesn't screw this up.
   Don't get me wrong, I'm not siding with BP here, but I do think that's pretty low of Obama to try to act like he's been in charge of this whole thing from day one.  I mean how stupid do you think we are?  Very stupid, I guess, and unfortunately he's probably right.  I've already seen a ton of coverage recanting Obama's "strong words" and "stern warning" to BP... I haven't really heard anyone yet say "hey wait a minute... this is the same guy who was asleep for the first half of this disaster!"  Are we so quick as a country to forget Obama's transgressions?  Were we this quick to forgive George Bush when he screwed up with Katrina?  I don't think so.  And you probably need to think about why you and all of us continue to roll over for this President and his buddies, why the instant he makes a speech we all stop in wonder and forget why we were even upset in the first place.
   I'm just sayin'...

E-LEC-TRONIC
   It's one of my favorite times of year: time for E3, the Electronic Entertainment Expo.  The time of year when nerds come out of hiding and gather in Vegas, surrounded by disproportionately hot women and more videogames than you can puke out after a long night of drinking.  It really is pretty awesome to see what these videogame people have come up with after sitting in their caves for a year, and for the first time in I don't know how many years, I think we're starting to see some truly forward-thinking and futuristic stuff once again.
   For the past few years, E3 has been about what sequels were coming out, and how the big companies (Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony) were going to duke it out to make more money and get better videogames.  The Wii was really the last bit of true innovation to come out of E3, until now.  Now Sony and Microsoft both have motion solutions, and we're starting to see some truly functional 3-D stuff as well.  It's a very exciting time, whether you're a gamer or just a dude who likes to push a button and make things blow up.  So, here is my "casual dude's guide to what you should watch for at this year's E3."
--Microsoft Kinect/Sony Move (or whatever) - Microsoft and Sony both made a big deal out of their motion peripherals last year.  Microsoft's looked too good to be possibly true, and Sony's looked like a homosexual magic wand.  In other words, neither of them impressed.  Well, here we are a year later and games are starting to be developed for these peripherals.  I want to know if they're going to be any good, and if they're going to compete at all with the Wii.  I also want to know if Nintendo has any more tricks up its sleeve to keep their system profitable and cutting-edge.
--The Best Graphics of This Console Generation - We're finally reaching the end of life for these current consoles (unless you work for Sony, who claims the PS3 will last for another 10 years).  Developers have had a lot of time with these consoles, and they're finally starting to come out with some really impressive visuals in their games.  "Ghost Recon," "Halo," "Killzone," "Crysis 2," they've all received staggering graphic overhauls, and the results are absolutely incredible.
--3D Stuff - 3D is still a very big question mark in my mind.  3D gaming is running into the same challenges as 3D movies.  How do you make it cheap, and how do you make it enjoyable for more than one person?  The glasses are still the biggest barrier here.  Nintendo announced a 3DS, which supposedly doesn't require glasses, but from everything I heard it was pretty underwhelming.  It'll be interesting to see what they can figure out with 3D in the coming months.
   As you can imagine, there's a ton of other great stuff going on in Vegas right now.  Way too much for me to write about here.  But if you're at all interested in learning more about what's coming down the pipe, check out Gametrailers.com.  They do the best job of keeping up with stuff and putting it all there in video for you to see first-hand.  You're welcome.

The Hurt Locker
   In Iraq during the middle of the big war, one man stands alone against terrorists who create IEDs to try to blow up unsuspecting soldiers and innocent bystanders alike.  He's the bomb diffuser, a person crazy enough to strap on a kevlar suit and helmet, and walk within a few feet of a device that could instantly kill him and everyone around him.  Okay so now we know what a bomb diffuser is, so you can picture the type of guy who is the main character of this movie: someone with a deathwish.  So he and his two buddies go around disarming bombs, and you never know which one could be his last...
   Okay let's get this straight right off the bat: this movie was good and enjoyable.  But it did NOT deserve the Academy Award.  This is what I was afraid of.  Had this movie not won the award, it would have easily been one of my favorite war-related films.  Unfortunately, as the winner of an Oscar, it is now held to a much higher standard in my book.  I'm not saying that "Avatar" should have won it either, but (especially in 3D) "Avatar" was better than this movie.  Tangent: I think the Academy has gotten pretty ridiculous when it comes to judging movies.  It's like if the movie's not making some profound social statement, it's not worth mentioning.  I guess they've forgotten that the main point of movies is to entertain... right?  RIGHT?
   Back to the movie: this is an interesting story, about an aspect of the army I didn't know existed.  They actually have a dude whose job it is to go around trying to diffuse these sloppy bombs made by animals in the desert.  Sign me up!  No thanks.  I can't believe that anyone would want to do that, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Some people truly do have a deathwish, and I think "Hurt Locker" does a real nice job of showing how that deathwish can have a profound impact on those around you.
   The acting in this movie was very impressive.  I was a little worried at first that it was going to be too "Top Gun" for its own good, but they pulled it off and I admire them for that.  There were some very tense moments that were incredibly believable and (I think) realistic.  There were also some surprises that I didn't expect, and some very VERY angering moments (I can't tell you how many times I yelled "JUST SHOOT HIM!").  If you want to know how stressful it is to be an American soldier, watch this movie.  If it were my call, I'd just drop a huge bomb on any suspected IED... unfortunately that's now how it works in the real world, and "Hurt Locker" does a great job of showing you the crazy rules our soldiers have to follow.
   So should you see this movie?  Yes.  You probably already have, but if you haven't, then yes.  However, don't go into this expecting an Academy Award Winning title.  You will be disappointed.  Honestly, for your entertainment dollar, I think you'd get more out of watching a movie like "Jarhead..." but "The Hurt Locker" was by no means bad and it was also education in its own twisted way.  Give it a shot, at least until they release a 3D Avatar on Blu-Ray...

THAT'S IT!

How Much Is Too Much?

   Alright, I admit that I've been complaining a lot about the oil spill lately.  Maybe a little too much.  But while most of my complaining has been about who's to blame and who should be doing more to stop it, I'm going to take a different approach today.
   A few nights ago I happened to catch the beginning of the CBS Evening News, and I saw some images that will probably stick with me for the rest of my life.  I found the stills here, but you really can't get the full effect without seeing them in motion.  Before you click that link, be prepared for some stuff that might shake you.  The most poignant to me is the poor little seagull, on his back in the oil.  The picture is bad enough, but in the video, you could see him struggling to get out of it.  Every time a wave would lap up, it would overtake him, and all you could see were his two little legs kicking as he helplessly drowned.
   Despite these heartwrenching images, I had to ask myself... is this too much?  Has media crossed the line here?  I know/hope that the photographer who shot that video was immediately after helping that little bird out of his mess, but should he have even shot it to begin with?  It's a tough question if you really think about it, and it applies to just about all of the most emotionally stirring images captured by media.  News people -- photographers especially -- are stuck in limbo with stuff like this.  Do you capture a shot like that, knowing that it instantly creates an emotional response and greatly increases the impact of your story... even knowing that by doing so, you're allowing an innocent creature to suffer or maybe even die?  Do you let the Tieneman Tank roll over that guy, knowing that it will become one of the most iconic visuals of all time... even though the guy will die in the process?  Is it worth that one life to affect (and potentially save) thousands of others?  For once, I will admit that I don't know the answer, but I think it's definitely something to think about.
   As I've said from the beginning, the really unfortunate thing about this oil spill is the impact it's having on wildlife.  I know thousands of people have lost their jobs and are now facing really tough times... but these poor animals who don't know any better, HAVE to dive into the oil just to eat and survive.  It's like asking you to bite your tongue off every time you eat.  And now I'm hearing that once scientist is saying that the "humane" thing to do is actually kill these oiled birds, as opposed to cleaning them off and letting them go.  His argument is that these birds just go plop right back into the oil, and even if they do survive (apparently less than 10% do), they will be poisoning the population.  Well, excuse me Mr. Scientist, but just who the hell do you think you are?  God?  I don't think so.  How can you (or any of us) decide whether something should live or die in a scenario like this?  I can think of quite a few people whose euthanization would actually improve the human population... but that doesn't mean they should be gathered up and killed.  Who are we to say that these birds should be killed, especially over something that's our fault?  If humanity has proven one thing throughout history, it's that anything we touch is going to be tainted or ruined, guaranteed.  Mother Nature has always found a way, so has natural selection, so has everything else that we didn't create and (for the most part) don't try to mess with.
   You know what?  Go ahead, Mr. Scientist.  Keep pushing your terrible, ridiculous ideas.  You're getting plenty of attention for them, maybe it'll cause 3 people (instead of 0) to read your next paper on the "impact of mitochondria when stimulated by a certain protozoa."  On second thought, Mr. Scientist, eat shit.

Shovin' Buddies
   I work in advertising, so I see every day how our industry is slowly dying.  I don't make it through a single day at work without seeing some article or email about how advertising is really hurting right now, how it's costing jobs, how no one's paying attention anymore and conventional ideas aren't working.  I also see a lot about "great" new ideas, that are actually only making things worse.  And so, in my constant attempt to help people make their lives better (and stop being such morons), here are some of the worst attempts at "creative new" advertising, and how they can be improved:
   In-Show Product Placement - This is actually an old, old method of advertising that is now starting to make a comeback.  In the 50s, your favorite sitcom housewife might take time out of her day to look at the camera and say something about a spiffy new cleaner she uses, or her favorite kind of detergent.  Now it's a little more nuanced, like say, a character in "Fringe" using the Sync system in his Ford to get directions somewhere.  I'm actually not too offended by this method, as long as it's done in good taste.  Sometimes it's painfully obvious that it's an advertisement, enough that it pulls you out of the show, and that hurts.  I think the next step here won't come until TV takes the next step (merging with the web), but I think it should involve creating hot-spots over the in-show advertising elements.  Imagine buying the same sunglasses that the dumbass in "CSI: Miami" always wears.  When he puts them on, you wave your remote at them, and voila... you're at the website (douchebags r us?).
   Invader Advertising: This is easily one of the most annoying types of advertising, especially when it's not done right.  You're watching your favorite show or movie, when all of the sudden half of your damn screen is taken up by a character from a show you've never even heard of and don't care at all about.  She saunters out, her hair waving in the breeze, and she stares longingly into the distance.  Oh yeah, there's a movie going on behind her too, don't forget.  The benefit to these, of course, is that you can't really skip them because you'll also be skipping your show... the downside is that they've just gotten out of control.  If you're going to make them take up half the screen, you might as well just pause the movie and let it run its course.  And some of these even have sound now.  Sound!  I'm trying to watch TV and you're going to have some asshole pop up at the bottom of the screen and start talking to me?  Get out of here.  The best way to improve this method of advertising is to get rid of it, or at least keep it minimal.  Discovery Channel is a great example of invaders done well... they're low-profile, they don't distract, and they look nice.  Well done, Discovery.
   Splitting Commercial Breaks: I've actually only seen one show do this ("The Ultimate Fighter"), but it's already stupid.  They will actually put a 30-second segment of their show right in the middle of a commercial break.  So you're skipping along, when all the sudden you have to stop, back up, and catch that little snippet.  I get what they're trying to do here, they're hoping in your efforts to catch that snippet, you'll also sit through the remainder of the promo before and the beginning of the one after.  However, in my experience, I'm more likely just to give that show snippet the middle finger and continue on until I get to the real meat.  Here's an idea for this one: stop making commercials a uniform length.  DVRs are set to either fast-forward or rewind normally, or to jump 15/30 seconds ahead at a time.  If your commercial breaks aren't a set length, those jumping DVR remotes become a lot less effective, and the odds of you seeing more commercials increases.
   Pre-Roll Ads:  These are becoming more and more prevalent.  Even YouTube is running them on their more popular videos.  I'm torn with these, because even though they can be a pain, they're not nearly as bad as pop-ups.  Usually when I see a pre-roll ad, I just open another window or do something else on my computer until it ends.  Don't be surprised though if you start seeing more of these take over your computer to a point where it's very difficult to minimize or ignore them.  So how do you improve on them?  Simply don't go overboard.  There's nothing worse than trying to watch a 20-second YouTube video, but you have to sit through a 30-second commercial first.  That makes no sense and in a lot of cases will kill any desire to watch the video.  Likewise with some videos that have so many ads triggered within them that you don't even know what you're watching anymore.  Just back off a little, keep the length of the ads down, and get them out of my face, and you'll be okay.
   Pop-Up/Under Advertising:  By far the most annoying thing on this list, pop-up ads have been around forever.  And it seems like while every browser out there has some kind of blocker, the advertisers are continuing to find ways around them.  You block the pop-up windows?  They put them UNDER the main window.  You block that?  They pop the ad up within your current window.  Not to mention the pop-ups that are now showing up over videos.  It's getting ridiculous, and for the most part they don't work.  Sure you might get some people with your "punch george bush in the face" game that actually is an ad, but are they really worthwhile visitors?  More than likely, you've now pissed them off and caused them to have an aversion to your online product.  Real nice.  The best way to improve these is to drop them.  They may look like billboards, but they don't work and they clutter up the internet.
   Sure in an ideal world, advertising would be gone completely.  But that's just not going to happen.  Content creators HAVE to make money, and other than charging you for their product (which some companies are considering), advertising is really the only game in town.  And in the end, there HAS to be a balance.  Think of it like Napster.  Napster was great because you could download any song you wanted for free.  But when you're not paying for those songs, the artists aren't making any money.  Well, I don't care how much you love to sing or perform, if you can't make a living doing it, you've eventually got to draw the line.  If there were no advertising, the companies and producers and performers wouldn't make ANY money, and it wouldn't be long before there was no more entertainment.
   On the other side of that coin, a lot of the onus here is on advertisers.  It's not enough just to be like "BUY ME BUY ME BUY ME!" anymore.  You've got to think of good, solid, creative ways to grab people.  You've got to sell them your product, but you've also got to entertain them.  It's not impossible to do, several advertisers out there have nailed it (Geico, Apple, Jack Links Beef Jerky, and Target come readily to mind).  I've actually backed up my DVR to catch a new Mac Vs. PC promo, or to see what Bigfoot is going to do to the guy who wouldn't give him a ride.  But you give me another "SALE SALE SALE!" promo and I'm out just as fast as I can punch that fast-forward button on my remote.
   I'm not saying you have to like advertising.  Hell it's my job and I still get annoyed by it.  I'm not trying to get you to click on pop-ups or to stop DVRing your favorite shows.  All I'm saying is that when you see a well-produced, interesting, even compelling or creative promo on the air or online, take a minute to be thankful that someone is finally stepping outside of the box in their effort to turn you into a consumer whore.

Get Him to the Greek
   In what I guess is a spin-off from "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," the rock star dude from that movie takes center stage in a story about his once glorious career and the following downfall of his entire life.  Now he's a washed up rocker so drugged up he can barely remember his name, but a loyal (fat) fan has decided it's time for this guy to make a comeback.  So said fat dude travels to said rock dude and tries to get him back to the states for his revival concert.  Along the way the two laugh, they cry, they do a lot of drinking, and they learn a little something to boot.
   I gotta be honest, I was not the least bit interested in seeing this movie.  "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" was great, don't get me wrong, but I think the rockstar guy was probably my least favorite part of the whole thing.  So now here we've got an entire movie centered around him... no thanks.  But I'm also not one to turn down a free trip to the movies, so how could I say no when a good friend of mine handed me the ticket?  In hindsight, I'm glad I saw it... though I certainly wouldn't pay to see it again.
   Let me just get this out right away: there is no male nudity in this movie other than a brief shot of Jonah Hill's ass.  While that was vomit-inducing, it certainly beats full-frontal.  Okay moving on...
   The story here is pretty standard.  Lame-o music industry guy comes up with a bold plan to save his company, but executing said plan isn't going to be easy.  What makes this movie great isn't the story.  It's also not really the writing, if there was any (most of this movie seems improvised to me).  No what makes this movie funny is the characters, and in that regard most of the casting was spot-on.  Be advised: the humor in this movie is not for the young, the squeamish, or anyone who thought "Superbad" was a little too racy.  But if you can get past that, there are some great lines and very awkwardly, painfully funny scenes.
   Normally in these reviews I'll mention the soundtrack, but I don't know if you can really call most of the music in this movie a soundtrack.  Sure there were some songs here and there in the background, but the main music was actually sung on stage, supposedly by the rock star dude.  I don't know if you ever get all the way through any of the songs, but I certainly hope the full versions aren't on the CD.  They were well performed, well mastered, but the actual songs themselves were just awful.  "The Clap?"  "Inside of You?"  Awful awful awful.
   Yeah, so, this movie was alright.  Not super fantastic, not terrible.  Not worth your money at the theatre.  A rental at best, and worth waiting for (thank you Netflix).  But if you're an Apatow kinda guy, and especially if you like Jonah Hill or "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," you should give this one a go and see what happens.

Oscar and Lucinda
   This guy named Oscar and this chick named Lucinda are born, right?  And they don't know each other, and they grow up very differently, but they both share one thing in common: they both love to gamble.  Well, eventually they meet and kinda sorta fall in loveish, but they're not sure, especially Oscar, who was raised religiously and who thinks everyone hates him an everyone is scrutinizing him.  Basically he's a nutcase.  Anyway, he and Lucinda kind of share an awkward relationship that may or may not turn into anything, depending on if you watch the movie.
   Actually, you may not want to.  I rented this movie solely for the soundtrack (Thomas Newman), and while I wasn't disappointed, it's certainly not something I would watch without the musical score to go with it.  It was odd, and kind of disjointed, but somehow it still had enough charm for me to finish it up.
   The interesting thing to me about this movie is that it has an epic feel, yet it retains its intimacy.  Several countries are spanned, and there's even a big and dangerous adventure, and yet you still feel like you're peeking into the very innards of the relationship between Oscar and Lucinda.  I honestly think the music had a lot to do with this.  This is one of my favorites from Thomas Newman so far.  It's quirky but it's big, a great score and one that I have yet to find for download on Amazon.
   But enough about that.  Should you watch it?  Meh.  Should you buy the soundtrack?  Yep.  Then make me a copy.

The Lost City
   Andy Garcia runs a club in pre-revolution Cuba, but it soon becomes the center of all the action as the country starts to get violent and Castro fights to take over.  Garcia finds himself in the middle of it all, trying to hold his family together and keep the peace both between them and inside of his club.  The revolution continues, but will Garcia be able to keep everything together?
   Let me just tell you how I found this movie.  I was flipping through channels, when I see Bill Murray sitting at a bar making a funny face.  Naturally, I'm intrigued, so I let it go for a little while.  Then I see Andy Garcia standing behind the bar and I think to myself "what are these two doing in a movie together?"  Then, Dustin Hoffman of all people, strolls in and starts playing tough guy with Garcia.  Now what the hell is going on here?  I check the Guide and discover this movie that I've never heard of, starring some of my favorite actors together.  So I set the DVR to catch it the next time it rolls.
   Turns out this movie is directed by Garcia, something that I guess he does quite a bit.  I don't know where he shot it, or how he got all these big actors to join up, but I will say that it's not really what I expected.  I know almost nothing about the Cuban revolution, but if there's any truth in this movie then it was pretty jacked up.  I can't imagne going through what Garcia's character did, seeing his country fall to pieces around him, finding members of his own family involved in things that he doesn't approve of... Garcia did a great job of showing you what this must have been like. 
   The acting was also great, though at times it did appear that there was a little to be desired from the script.  Bill Murray, for example, did his absolute best to play a character who could have been incredibly interesting (who is he?  What is he?  CIA?  Military?  Some joker?  Who knows?)... but in the end there just wasn't enough material and he winds up looking pretty goofy.  Garcia also seemed to ham it up a little bit... or maybe it's just that in my eyes, he'll never top his performance in "Ocean's 11."  I dunno, but the best performance I think came from Garcia's characters' dad.  That guy was very believable and I actually felt for him as he watched all of this unfold.
   So in the end, this movie is definitely interesting.  However, it's not for everyone.  If you've got some time or Netflix slots to kill, you might give this one a shot.  Otherwise, there's probably nothing really to see here.

   Well folks, keep your eyes on the gulf... can't wait to see what happens next.

Take Me Out Of The Ballgame

   I've never been a huge baseball fan.  Sure it's supposedly "America's Past-Time," but it's also boring as crap.  Baseball is great to have on while you're having a party, or cooking giant steaks with friends, or if you're trying to get drunk and want a stadium atmosphere... but really how often do you sit down and watch all nine innings of a baseball game?  Baseball, like basketball and hockey, is one of those sports that you can catch the last few minutes of and find out what you really want to know: who won. 
   I think it was set up this way because back in the day... back when baseball wasn't a past-time, but was instead just "that newfangled sport everyone's talking about," people would spend their entire day at the ballpark.  They would wake up early, shave, put on their high-water pants and suspenders, their (still awesome) fedora, grab the kids and head out to the ballpark.  They would watch some of the game, go have a picnic, and come back in time to see the end.  That's how long games are.  Unfortunately, nowadays the "7th inning stretch" is more like the "7th inning get outta here," especially with the Astros, who lose the game as soon as they set foot on the field.
   Anyway, my POINT is that there's been all kinds of arguments about whether or not baseball should join the modern world and adopt "instant replay" for close umpire calls.  The argument for is that one bad umpire decision could cost a team the game, especially during the playoffs (which is the only time, by the way, I will sit through an entire game).  The argument against is that it would take a game that is already days-long and extend it even further.  And a third (albeit even dumber) argument is that it will ruin the "best part" of baseball... which I guess is fat guys in weird clothes making bad calls.  I can see both sides to this argument (I'm not counting the third option)... some of these calls really are too close to get on the spot.  But baseball takes so long I can literally feel myself aging, the last thing I want is for every call to be scrutinized.
   And so, naturally, I have a solution that is better than any argument you could possibly make: take a page out of the playbook from America's REAL past-time (football), and introduce the idea of "coach's challenges" to baseball.  Here's how this brilliant plan works: give each coach 2 flags, weighted with a baseball.  If at anytime there's a questionable call, they throw the baseflag out onto the field, trying to hit the nearest umpire.  If they miss, oh well.  If they hit, awesome.  The call is then reviewed by an INDEPENDENT comittee, kinda like they do when there's less than 2-minutes left in football.  Keep the coach and the umpire out of it completely.  Once the call is rendered, the ref relays it to the crowd.  If the call stands, the team who challenged gets an "out."  If the call is overturned, the team gets to keep their challenge flag.  The best part of this plan is that not EVERY play needs to be reviewed... but every play can be replayed on the big screen (so if something awesome happens you can see it).  But when there's an obviously stupid call, like the one in the recent Tigers game, it can be challenged, reviewed, and overturned (allowing that pitcher to get his perfect game).  The downside here is that we don't get to see the awesome coach vs. ump arguements which sometimes get really involved (I once saw a guy throw an entire garbage can of baseballs out on the field - you can't beat that!).  Maybe they could still argue while the play is being reviewed...
   Regardless, baseball needs this change and addition.  It's time to get with the program fellas.  Oh, and it's time for the Astros to stop sucking.  Seriously.

Too Soon
   In case you didn't know this, there's a gigantic oil leak in the gulf right now.  Last I heard they'd closed off 37% of the gulf to fishing (though to be honest, I wouldn't eat anything out of there right now, no matter where it was caught).  They've tried all kinds of solutions to plug up this hole but so far they haven't had any luck.  And now, sadly (though not surprisingly), the government is launching a criminal investigation into BP's past and safety violations.
   Now I'm no fan of BP, but I have a lot of problems with this call.  First off, any kind of investigation needs to wait until there's actually something to investigate.  Let's focus on the problem right now, folks.  There are still thousands of gallons of oil leaking into the gulf right this minute.  Let's get that leak taken care of, and THEN we can try to figure out who's fault it was.  This leads me to my second problem: this entire oil spill thing is being politicized, which is just sad.  Politicians are dirty, low people, but this is bad even for them.  My favorite quote so far has been from some Senator who said "it's obvious BP doesn't know what they're doing."  Oh like you do?  Some politician sitting in his cushy office up in DC is going to try say something like that... I shouldn't be surprised, but I am more than a little disgusted.  You sir, are a foul excuse for a human being.  Even President Obama isn't above this scrutiny.  Sure he toured the coast, but did him walking along the shore do anything more than Bush flying over New Orleans in Katrina?  I would argue that while their public impact may have been perceived differently, their direct impact on the problem was one and the same: nothing.  I've never been one to waste my time writing to my senator, but I'm pretty close to calling that one dude up and being like "you're a jerk."  To take something as serious as this problem we have in the gulf and try to make it so next time there's an election you can say "I WAS CALLING FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BEFORE ANYONE ELSE!" ... it's petty, and sad.
   Another big mistake in the making: Obama has declared a moratorium on deep-water drilling.  No more deep-water drilling for at least six months while this whole thing gets sorted out.  That is absolutely ridiculous.  This blowout is a very serious mistake, one that will haunt all of us for decades.  But this one mistake has happened among hundreds of other wells, operating mistake-free for many many years.  Right now with the economy in the state that it's in, the last thing we need to do is stop drilling for oil.  It will cost thousands of jobs, and it will take business away from America.  You think those companies are just going to let those platforms sit idle?  Think again.  They'll move on to other locations in other countries.  That's money we should be making, just floating away.  The oil needs to keep flowing to keep the economy moving.  Without it we'll have job loss, higher gas prices, and then we're right where we were in 2008 when this whole stupid recession began.  Obama's a smart guy... surely he knows what a horrible mistake he's making... right?  RIGHT?
   The problem here, of course, is government.  They're too big and too slow to react to something like this disaster.  Right now people are looking at the government and saying "do something idiot!"  So while I think Obama and friends' were especially slow to respond to this situation, I also think it's unfair for anyone to expect the government to take care of this.  If any agency needs to be out there, it should be the military.  Those guys are the "doers" and they will get it done.  Don't expect government to fix this problem, or you'll be disappointed when they don't.  And PLEASE don't jump on this whole "let's blame someone" bandwagon yet.  Let BP do their thing, let them fix this gigantic spewing leak that is destroying the gulf of Mexico.  THEN we'll figure out who needs to be in trouble.

He Said She Said
   Another touchy situation where we shouldn't jump the gun: Israel is really taking some heat for the commando raids they held on ships trying to break through their blockades.  Both sides have video taken of the raids, and both sides have very different stories to go with those videos... but the basics are that some ships full of activists tried to run the blockade, Israel said no, then when the ships didn't turn around, Israel boarded the ships.  Things got ugly, some people were beaten, some were stabbed, some got shot, and now there's a huge mess to clean up.
   First let me say this: there were several Americans on those boats, and I think that's just ridiculous.  If you want to be an activist, be one, but don't put yourself in danger... especially for a problem that you probably know little about (I'm one to talk) and in a country that isn't yours.  That's like missionaries going to other countries illegally because the people there need help so badly.  There are plenty of Americans who need help, and you can help them without breaking the law or putting yourself in danger.  I think these activists are trying to make a statement... but I don't think it's "I'm an idiot."  Still, that's what I'm getting from their actions.
   Now to the whole Israel situation: I won't disagree that they've been pretty hard on the Palestinians and the whole Gaza strip... but I don't think it's without reason.  I'm not stereotyping here, but I will say that there have been PLENTY of examples of Palestinian aggression against the Israelites.  There's also been aggression the other way, I mean that part of the world is just a mess.  But right now Israel is in control of the land, and until that changes I think it would be in the Palestinian people's best interest to try to keep the peace, so that eventually, when they take over, there won't be aggression against them.  What do I know.
   What I do know is that Israel, in its sometimes harsh and sometimes unusual way of handling things, has managed to deal with some of the most violent and most animalistic people on the planet.  They're an island out there, surrounded by countries full of people who absolutely hate them.  They're the personification of why the Terrorists hate us, and yet they've held strong for years.  Sure it helps that they're getting aid from us and several other countries, but my point is that they know what works over there, and I don't think any of us are in a position to tell them what to do or what not to do.
   And yet, these activists still push the blockade.  I am stereotyping here, when I say that I picture the Americans at least as unbathed hippies searching for some sort of meaning in their life.  They look at each other and say "hey here's a situation we know almost nothing about, but we could really make a difference if we cause enough trouble... let's do it!"  So they pick up their sleeping bags and head to Gaza.  Now imagine how you would feel if a bunch of Israelis came over here and started messing around in your city, claiming that the way we govern isn't right?  They'd be kicked out pretty fast.  The fact that we, as Americans, have so much ignorance to go so far as trying to tell other countries how they should and should not handle situations... that's just beyond me.  Worry about your own life, and let them worry about theirs.  If you're that pissed off about the situation, then move out there, and don't expect America to come swooping in to save you when things get out of hand.  If you want to make it your problem, accept the responsibility that comes with it, and stop looking for a handout.

Blade Runner
   In the 80s Future, humans have created robots called "Replicants," which are much stronger and able to work harder and longer.  So naturally we exploit them, and naturally they get pissed and lead a revolt.  So now the robots are forced to live off-planet, but for some reason they come to earth.  That's when the Blade Runners come in, specially trained to take out these Replicants and save humanity.  Or at least I think that's the story.
   I know, I know, how could I have survived this long without ever watching Blade Runner?  Well, I'll tell you: happily. I don't care how groundbreaking this movie was, or how ahead of its time it was, or how it changed cinema forever.  It.  Was.  Terrible.
   The good (what little there was): I liked the atmosphere that they created.  A cramped, dark, old and worn down Earth.  I picture Earth as the bottom rung of a ladder of wealth, with most of the money being off-world, trying to attract people to bigger and better places.  They did a real nice job of making Earth look like a forgotten planet in this movie.  They also paid a lot of attention to the lighting, which I definitely respect.  It's like every shot was meticulously planned out.  And that's about it.
   There's so much wrong with this movie I don't even know where to begin.  The story is ludicrous.  I didn't know who the good guys were and who the bad guys were.  Were the robots really dangerous, or were they just trying to figure out how to stay alive?  Was Harrison Ford really trying to save humanity, or was he just a jerk who liked killing things?  Why did he love a robot if he enjoyed killing them so much?  Where was his personality?  Why was everyone in the movie so screwed up?  What was with that weird eyeball test that they used twice and then never used again?  Why were there so many shots where people were talking but their lips weren't moving?
   I'll tell you what this movie looked like.  It looked like Ridley Scott had a grand vision for this movie, which was utterly destroyed by the studios.  It looks like once the studios were done cutting stuff out, all Scott had was a puzzle, which he then had to cheat to put back together.  Hence the scene where Harrison Ford is talking to a guy about the robots but his lips are just saying "yeah" and then stop moving.  Maybe this is true, since I've noticed there are about 10 releases of this movie "Directors Cut," "FINAL Directors Cut," "THE FINAL FINAL CUT," etc.)... I dunno, but I definitely don't get the draw to this movie.
   So should you see this movie?  Chances are you already have.  Maybe you can explain to me why I should like it... because I most certainly did not.  So I'm going to give it a big fat "no," but I'm also going to be open to changing my mind, if someone can tell me why I should.

   I'm going to end this week with a little re-hash that I think is definitely worth bringing up again.  Missouri City (out near Sugar Land) has now passed a "no texting while driving" law.  They're just the latest area to do it around here, and they're just adding to the ridiculousness.
   First off, how do you enforce a law like this?  I've heard the cops look for "that glow on your face."  Well, I get a glow on my face when I'm sorting through my ipod, or when I'm talking on my phone.  I have to touch the screen on my phone to make a call, is that considered texting?  And on that note, isn't fiddling with an ipod just as distracting as texting?
   This just reinforces the idea that the government has no place in this part of our lives.  It is an invasion of privacy for them to be able to tell us what we can and cannot do in our vehicles.  What if the government told you that by law, you had to brush your teeth three times a day?  Or that you had to drink tap water because it has flouride in it?  Or that you could not have sex in the kitchen?  It's the exact same with this whole texting thing.  The government shouldn't be able to tell you you can't text, or can't eat in your car, or have to wear your seatbelt.  Personally I may agree with all of those things... I wear my seatbelt, I don't text or eat in the car, but I do it by choice, not because the government tells me to.
   Now on the flipside of that, we as Americans should be expected to take responsibility for our actions.  If you get in a wreck and are paralyzed because you weren't wearing your seatbelt, you've got no one to blame but yourself.  If you cause an accident because you were texting while driving, you should have to face the consequences.  And maybe that's really the root of the problem here.  Maybe the government has to make these invasive, ridiculous laws, in order to protect itself from the average American Moron.  I'm talking about the people who sue the playground manufacturer because the kid burned himself on a slide (forget the fact that as a parent you should tell your kid to stay off the hot slide).  Maybe this is for the parent who sues the car manufacturer for not being safer (forget telling your kid not to text and drive, or punishing them for doing so).  The government makes these laws to prevent itself from being bankrupted by all the terrible parents out there... I never really thought of it like that before.  It makes total sense, and it's totally lame.
   I'm not trying to tell you to text and drive.  I'm not trying to tell you to break the law.  I'm trying to show you just what a sad state we've reached when we need the government to tell us what we can and cannot do.  Pretty soon we're going to need a written directive just to put on pants in the morning.  It's only a matter of time before we're completely helpless.  And that's when it's all over.

   Speaking of all over... adios.