And The Big One...

   First off I just want to say a big "thank you" to everyone who has wished me a happy birthday today.  I also want to thank all of my Phoenix friends for throwing one helluva surprise party for me last night.  I remember most of it, and what I remember was pretty damn awesome.

   It's weird being 30.  I think I should feel like an adult, but I certainly do not.  I remember being a little kid, talking to my parents (who were in their early 30s at the time) as well as other "adults" and just thinking "now these are grown-ups."  And for all I know, that's how little kids think of me now... but man, if my parents felt then like I do now, they did a good job of covering it up.  So much uncertainty, so much to worry about, and a complete lack of feeling like I have any of it under control... I thought the world would get smaller and more manageable as I got older, but I see now I was wrong.

The Double-Edged Sword

   Speaking of things getting out of control, what the hell is wrong with people?  Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you've probably seen the shootings in Oregon and Connecticut, and the stabbings in China.  With the supposed "end of the world" looming, I suppose it's only natural to expect some level of craziness... but this is beyond anything describable.  I mean those were little kids in Connecticut.  Children.  I don't care how crazy you are, if you're willing to go that far you are crossing some serious lines.

   Of course, at the forefront of this whole mess is the issue of gun control.  Any time something like this comes out, the anti-gun nuts and the pro-gun nuts start duking it out.  Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  People pulling the trigger on guns.  And around and around it goes.  Now I personally hate guns.  They scare the shit out of me.  Anything that in one instant, with one slip of the finger, can end someone's life, is not something that I consider "safe" by any means.  But, despite my hatred of guns, I do believe that people should have the right to own them.  Consider a world where there were gun control laws, where it was illegal to own or carry a gun of any kind.  Who would then have all the guns?  Lawbreakers.  And if you don't think they would be able to get their hands on those guns, you're a moron.  Now imagine if each of the teachers at that elementary school had been carrying a gun.  Nobody wants a shootout, especially in a school, but I'd be willing to bet the killer would think twice about assaulting that place, and if he did go through with it I'd bet at least one of those teachers would have dropped his ass before he had a chance to hurt that many people.  So I am anti-gun control, but I look at it from a purely practical perspective.  I know that there is no way to rid the world of guns, and I know that criminals would get their hands on guns whether they were illegal or not.  So if that's the case then the rest of us should also be able to arm up and protect ourselves (and each other).  That said, I do think there should be MUCH stricter rules and regulations in place when purchasing weapons.  Not only should you have to prove that you have a clean criminal record... not only should you have to wait a set period (like maybe two days) before you can actually walk out with the gun you've purchased... each and every person who purchases a gun should also have go undergo a psychiatric examination.  If a shrink says your mental state is acceptable, only then should you be allowed to buy a gun.  Think about it - I'd be willing to bet a trained psychiatrist would be able to detect some oddness in the nutjob who killed all those innocent kids.

   Another issue I've been hearing a lot about is the way media is covering this event (and all events like it).  "Oh they just glorify the murderer by mentioning his name," or "all the media cares about is death and destruction," boo hoo hoo.  I tell you what... you may not like it, but I'm going to side with the media on this one.  The media's job in these situations is to divulge as much information as possible.  The whole reason you KNOW about the shooting AT ALL is because of the same media that you hate so much.  They aren't focusing on death and destruction.  They are focusing on FACTS.  I don't care how high-minded you think you are, there was some part of you that wanted to know who this killer was.  Who could possibly be crazy enough to assault a school and kill kids?  You want to know who he was, what his history is, what could possibly have caused him to go this far.  The media is not glorifying this guy, they are trying to educate you on what's going on.  Now, do some on-air people take it too far?  Yes, undoubtedly.  But try to see it from their perspective.  This is a tragic, tragic event... and they are seeing things that never make it on air.  Bodies of children, the bloody scene, everything.  And yet they are expected to hold it together and shrug these images off while they tell you about what's going on behind them.  Instead of nit-picking every little thing they say (like for example someone got mad because a reporter said "if this death count holds up"), why not cut them a little slack and try to accept the fact that they are doing their best just like the rest of us?  Can you imagine how it would feel if someone stood over you every second at your boring-ass job and said "oh, you could have collated those copies a lot better than that."  It makes no sense.

   No, if you're going to blame anyone for these types of events, blame yourself.  Blame me.  Blame all of us in this society, because we are the ones who drive this machine.  We are the ones who can't take our eyes off a good train wreck.  We are the ones who talk all big like "that's so disgusting" and "how could they," but then we are the ones who are sneaking a look.  We are the ones who slow down to look at a wreck on the side of the road.  It's human nature... we look for breaks from the ordinary, and because of the way we're wired, negative breaks from the ordinary are even more exciting to us.  

   The person who committed this crime, the people who commit any of these kinds of crimes, are trying to make a statement before they die.  They want to go out in flames so they will be remembered.  And it's true, if we didn't give them any attention they would probably just kill themselves and do us all a favor.  But I don't think it's fair for you to blame the weapons he used, because he had to pull the trigger on those weapons.  And I don't think it's fair for you to blame media for glorifying this guy, because if they didn't tell you who he was and what he was about, you'd then be attacking the media for withholding important information and "not telling the whole story."

   These events are a chance for us all to reflect on ourselves.  We should take a moment to tell everyone we love that we love them, and we should also take a minute to evaluate our own morals and judgments.  Think about your lives as they relate to others, think about what's really important to you.  Consider those things next time you go outside, head to the store, drop the kids off at school, whatever.

Rulebook

   So Facebook sure is making a big deal about their changing the rules, aren't they?  I love how they're trying to act like we're all so important to them... they even let us vote!  Facebook is so nice.  Except that they're not.  What Facebook is doing is what any company that reaches critical mass tries to do.  They are trying to stay relevant, and more importantly, stay profitable.

   Think about it.  It happens with all kinds of companies.  Microsoft was the shiz for a long, long time.  They peaked, and then reached a point where they were just innovating for the sake of innovation, and those innovations wound up doing nothing for them except cluttering their message and their brand.  Apple is slowly but surely heading in that same direction.  Facebook is struggling with this too.  How do they stay ahead, when their biggest competition is themselves?  And how do they continue to rake in more and more money, but still keep the company running?

   In a lot of ways, Facebook is a house of cards.  It's worth billions, but if they make even one tiny mistake they will be worth nothing.  This is because Facebook is built on convenience, and you are the only thing keeping it alive.  The instant Facebook becomes too much of a hassle -- whether they start charging, selling your private information, using your private information to target ads, or whatever... you will always be in the driver's seat.

   I think it's hilarious when I see all these statements on people's walls, all about "the information on my facebook page is my private information" and blah blah blah.  Do you really think that is going to stand up anywhere?  You don't pay for facebook.  They don't owe you anything.  In fact, in a lot of ways (legal ways) you owe them.  

   But there is a solution to the facebook problem.  Stop using it.  If you are really bothered by all this privacy shit, then stop putting your private info out on facebook!  It's not complicated.

   I didn't vote in this silly farce that they're putting on.  I'm not stupid and I know that I'm nothing but dollar signs to the folks at facebook.  What I plan to do, and what I suggest you plan to do, is wait until they've pushed you far enough, frustrated you to the point of no return, and then bail.  Go to google.  Hell, go back to Myspace, I think they're trying really hard to become a big deal again.  Whatever you do, don't fool yourself into believing that you control anything you put out on facebook.  And definitely don't be so gullible to ever think that Facebook has your best interests in mind.

The Perfect Getaway

   From Netflix:  Newlyweds Cliff and Cydney are enjoying a perfect honeymoon in Hawaii -- that is, until they run into a pair of menacing hikers. But that's not the only threat lurking in this jungle paradise.

   My Take:  I'm going to ruin this movie for you.  Though really, "ruin" is too strong a word.  This movie ruins itself, so in a lot of ways I'm doing you a favor.  Alright?  So here goes.  The main characters are the killers.  How do you feel right now?  Tricked?  Cheated?  Disappointed?  Good.  Because that's exactly how I felt when the ridiculous twist hit me like a fish at the end of this movie.

   This movie performs two cardinal sins.  First, it talks about making a movie within the movie.  This sad attempt at being "meta" only serves to weaken the plot... and the plot is already pretty thin.  Nothing worse than taking a movie where you know there's a twist coming, and filling it with shitty dialogue talking about the importance of a twist at a certain spot in a movie.  Foreshadowing?  More like stupidity.

   The second sin this movie performs is tricking the viewer.  Once the twist comes, you are taken down a road of flashbacks.  I have to admit, when I first got the twist and the flashbacks started, I was intrigued.  What were all the little telltale signs throughout the movie that I should have seen or picked up on?  Well, turns out there were none.  All of the giveaway stuff happened off camera, just before or after scenes in the movie.  There is no payoff when there's nothing to reveal.  You can't just hide the important shit and then laugh at viewers for not knowing it.  That's stupid.  What's worse is that there were several scenes in this movie where the only two people in the scene were our killers.  And yet they acted like they were scared, like they didn't know who was going to kill them and who they could trust.  Why why WHY would they do that?  It makes absolutely no sense, and it blows this movie wide open.

   The ONLY redeeming quality of this movie is the soundtrack.  And even that was "not bad."  The acting is terrible, the story is unforgivable, and this is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing something... anything... else.  Seriously, if I had to choose between jogging for two hours or sitting through this movie again, I would pick jogging.  IT'S THAT BAD.

Prometheus

   From Netflix:  When scientific explorers unearth an artifact that points to the origins of humankind, they're pulled into the unexpected adventure of a lifetime. But if they falter, the very future of their species is at stake.

   My Take:  Movies like this fascinate me.  They fascinate me because of their stories, but also because I think they really illustrate the importance of having a good producer and director at the helm.  There are spoilers ahead, so if you haven't seen Prometheus, go see it.  Right now.  Then read on.

   I'm a catholic, I believe in God, but I also believe that there are forces at work in this universe that we haven't even begun to fathom.  The idea that an alien race "planted" humanity on the earth?  Why ISN'T that possible?  Is it really so hard to believe?  And while there might not be any evidence as definitive as what was in "Prometheus," there is evidence that some kind of extraterrestrial live visited this planet at some point in our history.  If you don't believe me, just watch The History Channel on just about any Saturday morning.  There's always at least one show with this guy talking about some pretty compelling shit.

   So the story's got me hook line and sinker.  But it's so easy for a movie like this to go south.  So many things can go wrong.  You're teetering so close to the edge of disbelief that one wrong move can take you out of your imagination and into the world of "that's bullshit."  Enter Ridley Scott.  I'll be honest, I think Scott does a better job with movies like "Kingdom of Heaven" than he does with sci-fi, but "Alien" was pretty badass in its day, so that shows he has the chops to pull off something like this.  And for the most part, he does.

   My only real beef with this movie is that it left a lot of unanswered questions.  And not in the "cool maybe they'll make a sequel" way... it was more like in the "that's lazy" or "did they forget?" way.  First off, why did the giant aliens create us, just to destroy us?  They end the movie with the main chick inexplicably flying off in a completely alien spacecraft to "find the answers."  Forget the fact that there's a good chance more of the giant guys were on that ship.  Forget the fact that more of the weird alien mutant things were probably floating around on there.  Forget the fact that assuming she does make it to the big guys' planet, they would probably kill her on the spot.  It would have been better, honestly, if they would have explained why they wanted humanity dead, and then killed all the characters in the movie.  That would have been a much more satisfying ending.  Also, whatever happened to the biologist?  We saw what happened to the geologist (the pretzel guy who they had to burn the shit out of), but the biologist got the alien worm in his mouth and then we never saw him again.  What about the main guy who got sabotaged by the android?  He was starting to transform, and they killed him.  But what was he transforming into?  Why even include that bit in the movie if it had no purpose or meaning?  Why were the big white dudes so scared of the alien things?  They all seemed self-contained, yet those guys were so scared that one of them tripped and got his head cut off by a door.  The big white dude gets killed by the squid thing, and then gives birth to what I'm guessing was the first Alien.  But that's only one.  It looks nothing like the Aliens we're used to seeing.  And how in the world did that thing survive on a planet that presumably had no life?  How did it pro-create when there were no other aliens around to do the nasty with?  And my biggest problem: when they were running from the rolling space ship, after it falls out of the sky, why didn't they just run to the side?  Charlize Theron, the hottest chick in the movie, was crushed by a ship that was so narrow the main chick was able to literally ROLL to the side and have it miss her.  These were supposed to be smart people, problem solvers, and they couldn't even figure out how to escape something that easy?

   Those issues aside, this really was an enjoyable movie.  It was intense, it was creepy, it was surreal, it was beautiful.  I enjoyed the entire experience, and I plan to watch it again.  I highly recommend this movie, especially if you're a sci-fi junkie or like the "Alien" franchise.

Alright ladies and gents, that's it for this week.  Join us next time for another exciting episode...

What I WAS Going to Talk About...

   Phew it's been a while.  I keep little notes on what I want to write about, and the first thing on my list is "Black Friday."  That's how long I've been sitting on this one.  But don't worry folks, I'm not going to waste your time with complaining about Black Friday.  Actually I didn't think it was all that bad this year.  I even bought something on Black Friday, if you can believe it.

   Honestly there's not really much for me to talk about right now.  Maybe I've had my head down too much, or maybe I'm right in saying that it's just more of the same old same old going on out there.  There's still fighting in the middle east.  There are still a ton of people freaking out about the upcoming "end of the world."      It never changes.

   So, with that in mind, I've got some movie reviews here and we'll just leave it at that for now.  Hopefully I'll have something better next time...

The Hunger Games

   From Netflix:  In a dystopian future ruled by a totalitarian regime, resourceful Katniss and her partner, Peeta, represent their district in the lethal Hunger Games -- a televised survival competition in which teenage contestants fight each other to the death.

   My Take:  I picked up a copy of "The Hunger Games" (the book) at the airport.  It was actually when I was waiting for my flight out here to Phoenix for my job interview.  Anyway I picked up a copy and read the first page, and then I put it back.  I knew within one page that this was a book that would not interest me in the slightest.  In fact it would probably frustrate me, because it took what could be an awesome story and allowed its main character to ruin the whole thing.

   So I don't know how different the movie is from the book, but it looks like I may have been completely wrong.  While I'm still not a huge fan of the notion that these are kids, I guess I understand how using them instead of adults can add to the cruelty factor.  Anyway the point is this movie surprised me with how deep and good it was.

   Great characters (Woody Harrelson surprised the crap outta me), good concept/story, and for the most part good acting.  It was "cute" as it could be (considering kids were trying to kill each other), without going over-the-top stupid.  I will say I had some problems with the way the story played out.  There was a whole lot more sleeping in trees then there was fighting, and the introduction of those weird dog things was kind of stupid.  But still, considering how low my expectations were going into it, this was overall a success in my book.

   The first thing I did when this movie ended was download the soundtrack.  I tell you what, I'm still a Thomas Newman fan at heart, but this James Newton Howard guy knows his shit.  I'm finding more and more stuff that I like is coming from him.  Except for "Signs" and "The Sixth Sense."  That crap is freaky.

   Oh, one more thing.  This movie proved to me that I definitely have a true phobia of bees and wasps.  The scene where she's cutting down that hornets nest thing, I thought I was going to throw up.  It made me physically uncomfortable.  I've always joked and made a big deal about how afraid of bees I am, but I figured if it came down to it and I really had to, I could face a sting or two.  Now I'm not so sure.

   So yeah, in short, I will be seeing the sequel to this movie.  And I think you should too.  But see this one first.  Because who watches a sequel before the original?  Dumb.

50/50

   From Netflix:  An otherwise healthy twentysomething has a comically early midlife crisis when he gets slapped with a cancer diagnosis -- and a 50-50 chance of survival. But what's the meaning of life when you're not sure how long yours will last?

   My Take:  I tell you what.  These Apatow folks have got it down.  They have managed to find a way to take a very serious story and turn it into something that is funny but also touching at the same time.  So here's a kid who does everything right, living out the "why do bad things happen to good people" story... and it works.

   What really surprised me about this movie was just how funny it could be.  There were moments where I actually laughed, like, out loud.  That's not something I do when I'm watching a movie by myself.  But I think the formula here is that they were so serious, and there were so many downer moments, that when suddenly something funny happened it's like your emotions were running wild and weren't ready for the shift.  

   This is not an easy movie to watch.  It's a story about a kid who gets cancer.  A good kid too.  But more than that, it's a story about how the people around that kid deal with cancer.  Think about how your best friend would act if you got it.  Or think about how YOU would act if your best friend got it.  Your mom?  Your girlfriend?  It would change everything, and I think "50/50" does a great job of showcasing that.

   So like I said it's not easy to watch, but it is absolutely worth watching.  I applaud this group of guys.  They went from making one-off movies like "40 Year Old Virgin," discovered how powerful their message could be, and took responsibility for it.  Like Spiderman.

   You ever wonder about whoever wrote that line?  Who knew that a few silly words, "with great power comes great responsibility" could live on forever.  Seriously... it's in movies, on TV, it's everywhere.  That's got to feel pretty good.  And I make commercials that most people probably just fast-forward through anyway.  

Lincoln

   From Netflix:  Director Steven Spielberg takes on the towering legacy of Abraham Lincoln, focusing on his stewardship of the Union during the Civil War years. The biographical saga also reveals the conflicts within Lincoln's cabinet regarding the war and abolition.

   My Take:  I got this pal Matt.  When "Lincoln" came out, he kept asking me if I wanted to check it out.  I kept turning him down, because the last thing I wanted to do was pay 10 bucks to go sit in a movie that would probably be boring, and would be no different than watching it at home on my theater setup.  But eventually I relented, and wouldn't you know it... I loved this movie and I don't think Matt cared for it at all.

   Don't get me wrong.  It is boring.  And slow.  But that's what it's supposed to be.  Think about that era and how boring it was ALL THE TIME.  Seriously, people were probably joining the war just because it gave them something to do.  The movie is less about the war and more about the politics behind the war, which honestly I find fascinating.

   Things were so different back then.  Congressmen weren't the fat, slow, lazy, useless people they are today.  They were rock stars.  They were the only thing representing their states, a voice in the capital, they mattered.  And like the celebrities of today, there were some who were good and took their roles seriously, and there were some who were absolute jokes.  Like Lindsay Lohan.

   Everyone talked about what a great role Daniel Day Lewis played, and I agree.  But the person who really stole this movie for me was Tommy Lee Jones.  That guy is pretty much the same person in every movie, and yet he either finds roles or they find him to where all he has to do is make slight adjustments to the person he is, and he fits perfectly.  He was fantastic in this movie.  Really just about everyone was, except for Lincoln's wife.  Not so much.

   This is one of those movies you SHOULD see, but you probably won't.  Yes it's boring, yes it's about politics, but it is very important.  It's important to see where we were as a country compared to where we are.  It's important to see the concerns that were brought up back then, and it's important to get a glimpse at the beginnings of some of the racial problems that still plague us today.  I'm not saying you should go sit in a theater and try to stay awake for this entire movie (and it is long)... but at some point you owe it to yourself and the rest of us to educate yourself just a little bit, and watch this movie.  You could certainly do worse.

   Well folks, if I don't get to write again before the 21st, happy end of the world!  See you on the other side!

Timing Is Everything

   So here we are, just about a week after the election, and it's been sort of a rough week for Obama and his gang.  This whole mess with Patreus, new information suggesting the Benghazi attacks were part of a cover up, and now bombs are falling in the middle east.  Whew!  While I don't think the Israel stuff has anything to do with this, I do find the timing quite interesting on the other two topics.

   Does it strike you as odd that all of these crazy, damaging things are coming out now, AFTER the election is over?  I think it should.  The timing is just too convenient.  Had these scandals surfaced two weeks BEFORE the election, is there a chance that it could have turned the tide?  Maybe not, but possibly.  So how is it that two things as big and important as this are only just now surfacing?

   Media.  That's who I blame.  It's no secret that many mainstream media outlets preferred a second term for Obama.  And while you could argue that media is simply a mouthpiece for the people (after all, it's those people who watch the ads that keep those media outlets up and running), is it really media's job to pick favorites and slant things?  I find it a little ironic that the media can do some digging and find things like that Mother Jones video of Romney, or all kinds of other damaging facts and "didya knows" about Romney's background, but then something this big and important just blindsides them.  Still, I guess it's possible... I mean even Fox News, who you would think would be all over this stuff, apparently didn't know anything about it.

   I'm not going to continue harping on this, it's just something I want you to think about.  Consider for a moment that we are actually not as "free" as we may think.  Consider that while you might be proud to say "at least we're not living in an Orwellian society," in fact we are... it's just a different type of society.  We are controlled, but the control comes from us.  We breach our own privacy by posting intimate life details on facebook (or on blogs like this one).  We lazily spout out political or other statements that are spoken by media folks without bothering to do any of our own research or anything to make up our own minds.  We complain about things that we ourselves vote for...

Wait, what?

Freedom of UNintelligence

   I'll admit, I was getting a little "conspiracy theory" at the end of that last bit.  But there's no arguing that young people are depressing.  Oh young people... they think they know everything about everything.  I'm not saying that I was a genius by any means when I was in college, but I certainly wasn't as lost, controlled, or pathetically weak-minded as the youth that are supposed to carry the torch for the next round.

   The latest example: ASU students protesting the fact that the college campus is going "non-smoking," meaning that there will be nowhere for students or faculty to smoke on campus.  They will actually have to leave school to smoke cigarettes.  Now I wholeheartedly disagree with this, and I think it violates the rights of those students... but what's even more depressing than the fact that it's happening is how the students are protesting it.

   I saw a sign that one of these kids was carrying.  It said something like "my lungs, my choice, my right."  Oh you silly, silly child.  Don't you realize that isn't the case anymore?  Now that we have this wonderful universal healthcare, they might be your lungs, but it isn't your choice or your right.  I have a say in those rules, because I am partially paying for your cancer treatments down the road.  I'm the one who gets to help foot the bill for your medical bills.  I get to suffer the consequences of your bad decisions.  And so, as a non-smoker, I say no sir, you cannot smoke on campus.  Not on my dime.

   You know what would be interesting?  I would like to know how many of these protestors voted for President Obama.  I would like to hear their impassioned speeches over vegan lunches, most likely while one of them played the mandolin or some other stupid instrument.  I would love to see how up in arms they got about things like "the man" and "those rich bastards in the GOP who don't care about us struggling students." I'm sure it was extremely emotional and heartfelt.  And wrong.

   You see, silly college students, your votes actually led to your own demise.  It is because of your unwavering support for Obama and Obamacare that you are now having to leave campus to exercise your right to smoke.  How smart do you feel now?

   This is just the beginning folks.  It's just a matter of time before they are telling you how many calories you're allowed to eat, whether or not you can order a soda or a beer, or how many cups of coffee you can enjoy in the morning.  It's all for our own good... and it's all completely un-American.  Awesome.

Short and sweet this week!  Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!

It's Over

   Well, it's finally over.  After months of yelling at each other, of trying to act like we all knew what was best for our country (or at least we knew who knows what's best for our country), we've finally made it through the election.  And what do you know, the world is still spinning.  I will say this, I never thought I'd be happy to see regular commercials on TV again, but I am.

   So there's been a lot of talk through this election about how we went through all this trouble for "more of the same."  They're not talking about Obama winning, either.  What they are talking about is the gridlock that has held our country hostage for the past four years.  I heard more than a few frustrated anchors, reporters, commentators, talking about how upsetting it was that we once again had a Democrat in the White House, but a Republican House of Representatives.

   But I for one am glad that we have gridlock.

   Gridlock is what makes this democracy so freakin' awesome.  Gridlock proves to me that the founding fathers were smarter than any of us can imagine.  Gridlock is what sets us apart from most of the rest of the world, and what makes us better than the rest of the world.

   Think back to your high school history classes.  I know it's tough, because honestly who really pays that much attention in history?  You know what I remember from history class?  My junior year, we cut out 20's era cars and folded/taped them together with our own colorful designs.  I'm 17 years old, and I'm taping together a stupid origami car.  But if you can get past all the bullshit in history class, you may recall something that came up in the founding of this country.  Something called "checks and balances."  See, the whole idea for us was to build dysfunction into the system.  In this system, no one part of government could overrule the others.  And it's brilliant.

   Imagine for a second that we had all Democrats in congress and a Democrat President.  Think about how much more stuff would get done.  How many more bills would pass.  How many more laws would wind up on the books and how much more harmonious everything in Washington would be.  It would be great... if you're a Democrat.  But if you're a Republican, it would be a disaster.  The gridlock acts as a buffer... or maybe a safety net.  Well it acts as something to keep this from happening.  The idea here is that no one agenda can control everything, and only the truly bipartisan, smart, or critical ideas will make it past everyone.

   Of course, we've seen both sides get carried away with this idea.  Most recently it's been the Republicans, who basically openly declared that they would do everything in their power to stop Obama and his pals from being able to do much of anything.  They tried that for a couple years, hoping that it would kill support for Obama enough that during the 2012 election a Republican would get into the White House.  Well guess what fellas?  Your plan failed.  Obama is still the President.  And so my request (and all of our requests) I think would be for those Republicans to at least open their ears and listen to what Obama and company have to say.  It's one thing to stand up for your constituents, it's another to act like your children on the playground.

   There's another caveat to this whole "checks and balances" thing too, and that is the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is basically a bunch of old people who sit around in funny robes, making decisions every day that have a profound impact on all of our lives.  Abortion?  Gay marriage?  The big stuff.  It all goes through the Supreme Court.  Those guys aren't elected, they are chosen... and I think that's a big mistake.  Plus they serve life terms, which is hilarious to me because as we all know, the older you get the more out of touch you become.  And we've seen from both parties that the choice of who gets on the Supreme Court bench has less to do with education and brains, and more to do with party lines.  That's disappointing.

   So here's to another four years.  Four more years of fighting, bickering, people trying to act like they can save this country if someone would just give them a shot.  It's okay.  I would rather have gridlock than a purely Democrat or Republican government leading us down either path.  I just hope this time around maybe we can act a little more civilized about it.

Gasland

   From Netflix:  In this Oscar-nominated documentary, director Josh Fox journeys across America to examine the negative effects of natural-gas drilling, from poisoned water sources to kitchen sinks that burst into flames to unhealthy animals and people.

   My Take:  When I first popped this bad boy in, I prepared myself for another documentary told by some whiney environmentalist, talking about how gas is going to kill us all.  I thought we'd see some folks light their faucets on fire, then get a bunch of confrontations with politicians avoiding questions, blah blah blah... but I was wrong.

   What really sets "Gasland" apart is the way in which the story is told.  The narrator isn't some over-dramatic buffoon... he's just a regular guy, like you or me.  He's open from the start about why he's making the documentary (his land could be affected by the natural gas frackers), and while he has a definite stance, he never seems to try to convince anyone to believe it.  He's making this movie for selfish reasons, and it just so happens to be an eye-opening experience for you the viewer as well.

   Movies like this need to have more attention.  Not because they will convince you to be an environmentalist, or because they will convince you that environmentalists are nutjobs.  Really this movie needs more attention because it brings up an important choice that we're all facing.  What is energy going to be like in the future for this country?  We have an important decision to make.

   Would you still protest and cry out against natural gas fracking if you knew that stopping it would raise natural gas prices in this country exponentially?  Would you still want to have a solar panel installed on every rooftop if you knew that doing so would eliminate the need for electrical companies and put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work?  Where exactly is the line?  We enjoy a lot of conveniences... low gas prices, dependable electricity, things that people would probably literally die without.  And yet these are the same people who would protest the very things that make their lives so much easier.  I'm not taking sides, I'm just asking the question.

   Boy I went on a bit of a tangent there.  Anyway, as far as documentaries go, this one certainly doesn't have the best production value, and the main guy is kinda deadpan throughout.  But I do think this is an important topic (obviously) and I do think this documentary is worth checking out.

Flight

   From Netflix:  After his amazing safe landing of a damaged passenger plane, an airline pilot is praised for the feat, but has private questions about what happened. Further, the government's inquiry into the causes soon puts the new hero's reputation at risk.

   My Take:  Oh Denzel... you sly fox.  Just when I think I'm done liking you as an actor, you go and pull of something like this... and TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF.  Actually I did like Denzel's performance in this movie... but his acting (and the other actors' acting) is about the end of what I liked.

   What we have here is a movie about alcoholism, thinly shrouded in a story that was topical about two years ago.  Remember when that dude made the awesome plane landing in the Hudson and saved all those people?  I can just picture some movie producer saying "come on now, we GOTTA make this into a movie."  And Hollywood being Hollywood, I'm sure a lot of people agreed... but I think it's also apparent that the question was "then what?"  Finally, years later, some producer (maybe the same one) woke up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.  "I GOT IT!" he shouts!  "We'll do it on alcoholism!"

   Bad move capitan.  See, now not only do you have two different movies sort of band-aided together... you're also risking sullying the pilot (who's nickname is actually Sully) who made this incredible landing.  You're taking a guy who was a hero and presenting a major flaw, I get that... but think about the potential consequences.

   And let's move on past the crash, since really that was just the first 20 minutes or so of the movie.  The real meat and potatoes of this movie is Denzel dealing with alcohol and drug addiction.  It was actually a movie about drugs and drinking, not really about any of the other stuff.  And while it was painful to watch, it was also disappointing.  

   I couldn't believe how sympathetic this movie was toward Denzel's addictions.  I mean, am I seriously supposed to feel sorry for this guy because he's an alcoholic?  Was that the goal?  It's not even like the plane is what turned him to drink.  He had the problem long before then.  I dunno, I just felt like it went too far.

   I gotta be honest here... I didn't care for this movie.  Not only was it raw and uncomfortable, it was also just sort of silly the way they portrayed this character.  Yeah let's drug him up so he can do a better job at his trial!  People were actually laughing in the theater when they saw how terribly he had failed at controlling his addiction.  Ridiculous.

In Time

   From Netflix:  In a near future where aging stops at 25, time is the new currency and the wealthy can live forever. When Will Salas inherits decades of life from a wealthy murdered man, he's pegged as the suspect by the corrupt Time Keepers, who enforce the law.

   My Take:  Holy crap this movie was bad.  Justin Timberlake... you, sir, are a whiney little baby.  Even when you're trying to be tough, you're whiney.  I don't know who the other chick was (yes I said other chick), but she wasn't much better.

   The worst part is, this movie didn't have to be bad.  The premise is sound.  Time has become currency.  But instead of making it all cool and hip, they should instead have focused on it being a necessity of population control.  They should have made it grittier, written it better, and they should have cast some real actors instead of hacks.

   The socialist message isn't very suttle in this movie.  The guy is fighting the system to give time to everyone, even though it will destroy all of them in the process.  Equality for all.  Wonderful.  It wasn't hidden in any way, not that it matters because no one smart enough to get it would bother watching this drivel.

   I'm bitter, yes, but it's because I think it's a shame that they squandered such an opportunity.  You had a chance to make something really cool here.  Something along the lines of "Gamer," something with some real commentary value.  Instead you made a bunch of sad-face looks, upset whiney babies, and... well, that's about it.  Congratulations.  Pass.

Skyfall

   From Netflix:  When a serious menace threatens MI6, James Bond is on the case -- putting aside his own life and personal issues to hunt and obliterate the perpetrators. Meanwhile, secrets arise from M's past that strain Bond's loyalty to his longtime boss.

   My Take:  The latest (and supposedly greatest) Bond movie does not disappoint.  While it might not hit on all fronts, it does have some very, very good moments.  I'm not a huge Bond fan to begin with, so fair warning: my opinions might be skewed.  Oh, and also, SPOILER ALERT.

   This movie got several things right: the action was intense.  There was plenty of it.  There were also some very creative scenes (I loved the Shanghai office building with all the glass).  The soundtrack was great (and patting myself on the back, I correctly guessed that it was Thomas Newman).  There were beautiful locales, and it just felt more like a James Bond movie than the last couple.  They even reintroduced some classic characters.  Unfortunately, that's where things begin to get ugly.

   This movie failed on a lot of fronts.  As I said, there was a lot of instense action... but it was shot all wrong.  There were great fight scenes but they were all shot from afar, big wide shots of arms flailing, hits landing, it was a complete waste of some awesome choreography.  The characters were reintroduced, suggesting that we are in fact rebooting the series... and yet he pulls the old Bond car out of a garage.  If you're going to pay homage to the past, then let the past be the past.  But to have that, and then have Moneypenny stroll in as if she's brand new to the group, and that's after M has died... well, none of it makes sense.  You're basically taking one giant shit on the timeline.

   The movie also drags.  It has a nice natural ending, which it simply doesn't take advantage of.  There's an entire 30 minutes after the fact that just don't need to be there.  It's like they wrote two possible endings for the movie, and the producer or director was like "fuck it let's shoot 'em both!"  And then the editor was like "what am I supposed to do with this?"  And the director is all like "DON'T LOOK AT ME WHEN I'M TALKIN' TO YOUUUU."  So then we are treated to a "Home Alone" -esque ending for grown-ups.  It's like what McCauly Culken would have done if that movie were rated R.

   Still, I liked the movie and I think it's worth seeing.  But not in theaters, at least not this weekend.  I gotta tell you, I've never been a big fan of seeing movies in theaters, and this movie just reaffirmed all of my complaints.  The place was packed with smelly, fat people.  The grandparents sitting directly next to me were trying to entertain their little kid, who of course would not shut up through the entire movie (and the "good granparents" weren't going to say anything to him).  Shut up kid, you're not important and no one cares what you think.  I counted at least three babies crying during the movie.  Who brings a BABY to a movie like this?  You should be slapped in the face with a parenting book.  And the best part was when some asshole answered his phone during the movie.  It rang loud, and he picked up.  He says "I'm in a movie."  Then he proceeds to have an entire conversation!  People yelled for him to shut up, but he just kept talking.  What a prick.  So yeah, not a fan of the movie theater experience.

Alright, that's it.  I'm done.  I know I've been kinda phoning it in these past couple of entries.  Thanks for staying with me though.  I'll try to step my game up for next time.

Not This Time

   I'm a big "Time Magazine" guy.  My mom got a subscription back when I was in high school, and I've loved it ever since.  I remember bringing a ragged, dog-eared copy into my Physics class to talk to Mr. Nielsen about it because it had blown my mind (it was all about parallel universes and quantum theory and whatnot).  I've also always appreciated "Time" because despite having plenty of columns and opinion stories on both sides of the political aisle, they've always done a pretty decent job of keeping it middle-of-the-road.
   Until now.
   I was very, very disappointed to discover in the most recent issue of "Time" an article that swayed so far left that it was simply embarrassing.  Here's a link to the partial article (you have to be a member or buy the magazine to read the entire thing), but I will summarize it for you.  Basically this article was all about Republicans' attempts to make voting more difficult, obviously in an effort to keep minorities and the poor from being able to go vote for democrats.  The idea was that the big bad Republicans have been trying to enact all these nasty laws and rules as a desperate ploy to keep their party valid.
   Some of the rules, I have to say, are questionable.  For example, I remember one law that was passed in a state specifically outlawed voting on a day where a predominately African American church worked with it's lower-income community to try to get people out to vote.  That's not cool.  But most of the laws were more like "you must show photo ID" or "you must prove that you are a US citizen."  Really?
   This would all be well and good if it had been written in the opinions section.  But no... this was a national article, prominently shown in the magazine, lumped in with their other big articles.  You could have easily changed the premise of the story to "how Republicans are trying to save the voting system" and it would have been just as (if not MORE) accurate.
   When did it become wrong to tell non-citizens that they can't vote?  When was that considered big and bad?  What's the big deal asking someone to show you their driver's license before they go vote?  I don't get it.  These are rules that should be applauded.  They keep our system honest, they help stop fraud.  And yet, the Republicans who enacted them (or who tried) are now being harpooned as anti-american and anti-vote? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Republicans were more than happy to find that enacting these laws would most likely benefit them... but at the end of the day keeping if keeping people honest helps one party more than the other, who cares?  It's the honesty that's important.
   So are we supposed to be outraged that Republicans are demanding we show our IDs and prove we are citizens before we vote?  Are we supposed to be angry because it might cost the democrats a few votes?  Or are we supposed to be thankful that someone is raising the red flag?  That someone is letting us all know our electoral system is being hijacked and we need to do something to protect it?  Is that supposed to piss me off?  It does.  At "Time."

Lie Strong

   So Lance Armstrong is in trouble.  I guess he's done trying to fight the accusations that he was doping his way to all those Tour De' France wins.  But forget the fact that no one should give two shits about a dude because he can ride a bike really fast.  Forget the fact that this entire thing takes place in France, the most ridiculous country in the world.  What this comes down to in the end is an argument over whether or not he actually loses here, and whether or not it's worth our time and money.

   Lance Armstrong is not a "loser" by any means.  Sure he's lost his sponsorships, and sure he was stripped of his titles.  But he is RICH.  He is FAMOUS.  And (something actually good) he has raised millions of dollars to help fight cancer.  So what if he has a trophy or two (or seven) taken away?  So what if Nike is walking away?  He's got his money.  He's going to be fine.  So what's the lesson here?  If you cheat to win and you're caught, you still kinda win?  Sure you only have one nut, but you still win?

   And even worse is how much money has been spent trying to get this guy to fess up.  You think the Roger Clemens stuff was ridiculous, the authorities have been tracking, tracing, and trying to catch Lance Armstrong for YEARS.  How many hundreds of thousands, MILLIONS of dollars have been poured into trying to prove that this guy wasn't able to do the unthinkable without some kind of outside help?  We're trying to buy our way out of two wars, we're in debt up to our asses with other countries, and we're pouring out time and money to try to catch a CYCLIST?  A CYCLIST???

   There is, of course, the argument about keeping sports honest.  "What are we teaching our kids" after all?  Well, chances are none of those kids are watching bicycle racing.  If they are, you need to get them a new hobby.  But even if you are upset about the lessons these kids might learn, this situation is no better.  What your kids have learned is that you can cheat your way through professional sports, and if you're caught, you get slapped on the wrist while you drive away in your Ferrari.  Nice lesson.

   Who really cares about Lance Armstrong?  The people who have benefited from his charity.  And if it took one dude cheating his way through a silly cycling competition full of french weirdos, then I say that's worth saving lives and furthering cancer research.  Not saying it's cool to dope, just saying look at the big picture here folks.

(500) Days Of Summer

   From Netflix:  When his girlfriend, Summer (Zooey Deschanel), unceremoniously dumps him, greeting-card copywriter and hopeless romantic Tom (Golden Globe nominee Joseph Gordon-Levitt) begins sifting through the year-plus worth of days they spent together, looking for clues to what went awry. As he recalls the good and bad times he spent with the commitment-phobic girl, his heart reawakens to what it cherishes most. Marc Webb directs this uncommon love story.

   My take:  This movie warns you right off the bat that it's not a love story.  Kind of strange, I thought, considering that seemed to be the target audience for the movie.  But it had two actors I really like, an interesting premise, and a good strong opening couple of scenes, so I figured what the hell I'll stick with it.

   I found myself laughing on more than one occasion.  I caught myself feeling angry and frustrating.  I felt sorry for the main character.  I got mad at Summer.  And then I realized... I was falling for this movie just like the main character had fallen for Summer.  The movie even warned me right up front that it wasn't going to be a love story (just like Summer warned him that she wasn't looking for anything serious)... and yet here I was angry that it wasn't playing out like a traditional love story.

   I also realized something else.  I have been that guy before.  I think many of us have.  Trying to understand a situation that just isn't mean to be, even though you're SO SURE that it HAS to be.  You spend weeks, months, sometimes years trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  You pour so much of yourself into trying to make something work that it almost breaks you... and on the other end is someone who gets all of the benefits of your hard work without having to reciprocate in the slightest.  And whaddya know... things work out just fucking fantastic for her, and you're left feeling empty and worthless.

   It's a terrible feeling, and it's a feeling that I actually found surfacing inside of me as I watched this movie.  And that's when it hit me.  "(500) Days Of Summer" is a work of pure genius.  Oh sure, it's a good film.  It's well-written, well-acted, funny, has some great dialogue and moments and characters.  It's even cool stylistically (I like the counter graphics, very nice).  But what really makes this movie sing is the fact that it can reach into your life and make you feel these things that you have suppressed for so long.  It can bring out these feelings that you have so expertly ignored and tucked away.  It's not a sappy love story where everything works out in the end.  Or is it?  It's so close to real life that it's scary.  And it makes me feel bad for the writer/director, because you can just tell this is something they've experienced firsthand.

   Bravo to everyone involved with this movie.  You've done more than just make a great film.  You've figured out a way to grab all of us beyond the screen and pull us into your story in a way that I never thought possible.  In other words, see this movie.

The American

   From Netflix:  On the heels of a rough assignment, assassin Jack declares that his next job will be his last. Dispatched to a small Italian town to await further orders, Jack embarks on a dangerous double life while falling for a lovely villager.

   My Take:  Here's one that slipped under the radar.  Well, I say that but in reality it was buried in my Netflix queue so I heard about it from somewhere.  Much like the role in "The Descendants" was perfect for Clooney, the role in "The American" was not.  And I hate to say it, but I think it's mostly because Clooney is just too old.  He was trying to be the lean-mean-fighting-machine, but he just came across as sort of frail.

   This was an interesting story, but it really was beneath an actor of Clooney's caliber.  Someone like Jason Statham could have very easily performed this role.  I know it was trying to be the "classy hitman movie," but a hitman movie is a hitman movie, and at least Statham would look like a badass beating the everliving shit out of people.  Unlike Clooney, who just sort of looked like he was flailing around with a frightened look on his face.

   I guess in some ways this movie was much more realistic in the portrayal of that kind of lifestyle.  Sure, I don't really know.  But as far as an entertaining movie goes, this one fell kinda flat.  And the final scene wrapped up so tightly and perfectly, it reminded me of something I would have worked into the ending of one of my childhood movies.

   "The American" tries.  But it fails.  Don't bother.

Cloud Atlas

   From Netflix:  In this star-studded drama, six seemingly disparate stories take viewers from a South Pacific Island in the 19th century to 1980s America to a dystopian future, exploring the complicated links that humans share through the generations.

   My Take:  The Wachowskis have lost their edge.  That's what I would have told you if you had asked me my opinion before going into this movie.  Ever since the Matrix it's just been downhill.  I couldn't even make it through the first 10 minutes of "Speed Racer."  But "Cloud Atlas" was the moment when the Wachowskis restored themselves.  To an extent.

   This movie is a HUGE undertaking.  I never read the book, but if it covers this much ground it must be just gigantic.  To the Wachowskis' credit, they were able to take what was probably a huge and complicated storyline, and compress it into something watchable.  I will give them that.

   The visuals are gorgeous.  The graphics and special effects are amazing.  The idea is genius.  The concept is deep and thought-provoking.  This movie had all the pieces in all the right places.  The only thing that threw me was the element that tied it all together.  I won't give it away, but you won't be able to miss it.  It's stuffed down your throat so hard it will make you gag.  It's like they had this delicate, wonderful, nuanced movies, and then some idiot from the studio came in and said WAIT DO THIS.  SEE?  NOW IT'S ALL CONNECTED!  GET IT???  Yeah no, we got it.

   Still, I did think this was a fantastic movie.  Very well done.  And it gives me hope that the Wachowskis are back on the rise.  Give us "The Matrix" again, guys!  This movie isn't it, unfortunately... but it's close.  See it.  See it in theatres if you can.  And then feel smarter for having seen it.  Trust me, it's better than 99% of the bullshit farting around in theatres right now.

   Before I go, I just want to say one thing about Sandy the "Super Storm."  This hurricane has gotten more coverage than any other storm I think I've ever seen in my life.  Sure it's historic, and it was by no means a wimpy storm.  But you want to know why it's getting so much attention?  Because (A) it's hitting New York, and (B) there's nothing else going on in the news right now except politics, which everyone is more than happy to take a break from.

   But compare this to Hurricane Ike, which rocked Houston's world back in 2008.  That storm was also a monster, also historic, also very damaging.  And yet it was nothing more than a blip on the national media's headlines.  It was "the economy!" followed by "the election!" followed by "chi chi the baby panda!" followed by "oh yeah Houston got its ass rocked off by a hurricane."

   I turned on my TV this morning to see a news reporter being WAY too dramatic talking about a tanker boat which had blown across the harbor and ran aground on the beach.  She was freaking out because it was "JUST A COUPLE DOZEN FEET FROM THIS MINOR ROADWAY!"  Does anyone remember Ike, when boats were on the FREEWAY about 50 miles from the ocean?  No?  Not surprising, I'd be shocked if any of that footage made it out of Texas.

   Situations like this are always a good eye opener for those of you who blindly follow the media.  It's also good for those of you who claim to be smarter than that, and yet you spent the last three days talking about nothing but the "Frankenstorm" or the "Super Storm."  For those of you posting on Facebook about how many times you've been to New York, like that means you're feeling this storm more than the rest of us.  Consider this:  While all of the storms listed were very damaging and ruined many many lives, from a media standpoint, Sandy was a big deal because it hit New York during a media "dead time."  Katrina was big deal because it turned into a political "everybody hates George Bush" story.  Ike was not a big deal because it happened to Houston, a city the media just seems to kind of ignore, and because Houstonians are incredible people who, when faced with unbelievable challenge and hardship, put their heads down and get things done instead of crying for help or trying to paint something as unfair or blame it on someone else.

   There, I said it.  It's my opinion, doesn't represent anything or anyone else.  Just my opinion.  Hate me if you like.  I've never been to New York.

Decisions Decisions

   Well, that does it.  We've sat through four debates, we've heard both sides say the same thing a thousand times, now all that's left is for all of us to make our decision.  Well, really it comes down to the 10 or 11 undecided voters left in a couple of key states, but hey!  Democracy!

   Just because your vote doesn't really count (thanks electoral college!) doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.  And by the way, that's all you are seeing here.  My opinions.  But it also doesn't mean you shouldn't vote... there are plenty of local and state races that you really can make a difference in, and those outcomes will affect your day-to-day life a lot more than the presidential election anyway.  But because chances are you're not one of the 10 undecideds who will sway this thing one way or another, might I suggest you take this opportunity to open yourself up?  To consider viewpoints that you may not have considered in the past?  To look at this election as a chance to really view things from the other side of the aisle?  Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.  But consider the following...

   On healthcare -- There has been a LOT of talk about Obamacare and whether or not it's what's right for this country.  This is dumbing it way down, but the basics of the argument is one side saying that government is capable of managing a healthcare system for everyone in this country, and the the other side saying that it isn't.  The argument against is one that say government was never designed to take on a role like that.  Sure it works in other countries, but other countries aren't America.  They aren't set up the same way.  The idea is that private companies competing with one another will drive prices lower and improve healthcare because they are constantly trying to one-up each other.  That side also argues that those of us who work every day should not be held responsible for the healthcare of those who don't, can't, or won't.  On the other side of the fence, the argument goes that we are already taking care of those people.  There are hospitals that don't require insurance, and the way I understand it those hospitals pay for treatments out of taxes.  That's still your money and mine, it just gets to those people in a different way.  Also they argue that private industry is not so great as it might be made out to be.  Competition is SUPPOSED to keep prices down and quality up... but time and time again (not just in the medical industry) we have seen where private industry almost seems to work together, AGAINST us... slowly raising prices, coming up with more and newer ways to cut corners and provide less service for more money.  Honestly private industry can be a bit of a dick sometimes, and while government may not have been designed to handle something as massive as Universal Healthcare, it can probably do a better job of keeping things fair.  I give the edge to Obama and his pals on this one.  I'm not a big fan of handing ANYTHING over to the government, but the reality is that private health insurance has done nothing but prove that they are a money-making machine.  Rates go up, coverage goes down, and more and more they are finding ways to establish reasons why they can't cover those of us who actually need it most.

   On Taxes -- Obama says he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy while keeping rates the same for everyone else.  Romney wants to lower taxes for everyone across the board.  They've both traded barbs over the specifics of their plans, while neither of them has really provided us with those specifics.  Romney says he'll cut out loopholes in order to make up the difference.  I don't get that.  Obama says it's time for the rich to carry more of a burden.  Why?  First off, I don't think the taxes are the root of our problem as much as our spending.  Our government spends sooooo much money... from the massive military, to the sloppy and un-policed social programs, right down to the ludicrously large (and permanent) paychecks that our elected officials earn.  THAT should be what these politicians are addressing, not the taxes.  But if we're going to talk about taxes, I'm going t lean Romney's way on this topic.  While I agree that the rich should do their part, I don't believe they should be obligated to do any larger part than the rest of us.  That, I believe, is the road to Socialism.  What we don't want to do is get to a point in this country to where you are penalized for being rich.  I'm definitely not rich, and if Obama is being honest about his plan, it would probably help me more than Romney's.  But that doesn't matter.  What matters is how FAIR both of these plans are, for EVERYBODY.  It's time for us all to face some hard facts: some people are going to be rich.  Some people aren't.  Some people will always be in the middle.  That's life.  That's what makes this country work.  But taxing people more because they are successful is not a good formula.  In my opinion, the better formula is to give everyone more money in their pockets so that they will hopefully turn around and spend it, pumping more into the economy and juicing it back up again.

   I was going to do a bit on foreign policy, but after that last debate it appears the two guys are pretty close on most of those topics.  I'm not saying that is a bad thing either... I think Obama has some good plans in place, and there's no reason for Romney to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.

   Honestly I did think these were all pretty good debates.  Biden made a bit of an ass of himself in the VP debate, but that's just how Biden is.  Can you believe that at one point that dude was gunning for the presidency?  Sigh.  Anyway, the townhall debate was definitely Obama's.  That's more his style, informal, off the cuff.  Romney was stiff and awkward, even in his walking around he looked like he was very out of place.  It kind of reminded me of the Nixon Kennedy debates (which yes, I only heard about).  The third debate was a little more straightforward, but it seemed like Obama was trying his best to ride his momentum.  Honestly I feel like that debate could have gone either way.  So much of it was agreement between the two candidates, it really wasn't much of a debate.  I'd give Romney a SLIGHT edge in that one, if for no other reason than the fact that he didn't come across as aggressive and he did a better job of pulling the discussion away from foreign policy (where it was supposed to be) and focusing more on domestic issues (which is what people actually care about).

   I'm not going to sit here and try to sway your vote one way or another.  All I'm going to ask is that you keep an open mind and try to see things from as many different angles as you can.  I know that's tough, I certainly don't always do a good job of it.  These are two very smart, very capable men.  They both have very different views for how to get the country back on track, and I'm not in a position to say that either one of them is wrong.  During the debates they have both made compelling arguments for their cases.  What I will say is this.  Romney is a man who has made a living out of turning things around.  Of righting ships.  I personally do believe that he has a better understanding of the economy, and while he may fall short in other areas, that is the priority right now.  However, while he may have a better grasp on what the problem is and how to fix it, he's also going to be in a very different position than he was in the private sector.  He can't just close a failing business and repurpose its funds anymore.  He has an entire country to worry about now, and those types of harsh, capitalist ideas don't tend to go over too well.  Obama appears to be a much more compassionate man.  He sells himself (and I believe he is genuine) as the guy who stands up for you, for us, for the little guy.  He wants to be an equalizer, which on paper might sound dangerous, but in practice he sees (like many of us do) that the rich are squashing the rest of us.  They are riding on their successes and holding a lot of us down in the process.  So while the differences between these two is very clear, the decision between them, at least for me, is not.

   Alright I think that's enough politics, don't you?  I'm kinda getting burned out here.  Let's do some movies and call it a night.

The Muppets

   From Netflix:  When Kermit the Frog and the Muppets learn that their beloved theater is slated for demolition, a sympathetic human, Gary, and his puppet roommate, Walter, swoop in to help the gang put on a show and raise the $10 million they need to save the day.
   My Take:  I haven't really kept up with the Muppets over the years.  I watched their original movie way back in the 80s, and it was incredible.  But I guess that was always enough for me.  If I've learned anything from "The Land Before Time," it's that a lot of times the original movie is all you need.  The sequels just turn into money-making garbage.  Now I'm not saying that's the case with the Muppets... Jim Hensen was a classy guy, and I can't see him allowing his product to sell out.  But the point I'm trying to get at is that Hensen didn't produce this movie.  Jason Segal did.  And while Segal was obviously very into the idea of this movie, I just wasn't sure if he was going to be able to pull off the same level of magic.
   But he did.
   "The Muppets" is a touching, heartfelt, and deeper-than-you-think story.  It tugs at the nostalgia strings way more than I ever thought it would.  And while it has its share of silly, childish humor, I think there's no doubt that Segal made this movie for adults.  It's safe for kids don't get me wrong... but the themes, the emotion, it's all very grown up in that regard.
   If you were ever a fan of the muppets, you owe it to yourself to see this movie.  It will take you right back to your childhood.  Enjoy the moment.

Haywire

   From Netflix:  A last-minute mission in Dublin turns deadly for stunning secret operative Mallory Kane when she realizes she's been betrayed -- and that her own life is no longer safe. Now, to outwit her enemies, she'll simply have to outlast them.

   My Take:  Hmmm.  When I stopped watching this movie, my first reaction was "hey that was pretty good."  But the more I think about it, the more I realize that no, really, it was not.  It has all the makings of an action-packed thriller.  There's great fighting, there are tons of plot twists, you don't know who's who and who's going to turn on who.  Except you do.  The entire first half of the movie is explained by the main character.  It's all told through flashbacks, and it's all explained.  I would say I get it, that they were trying to be meta or whatever... but really I think they just realized that the story was so out there and vague that without explanation there was no way the viewer would be able to hang.  Okay, I appreciate the help, but I would have much preferred you to not be lazy with your filmmaking.

   Granted, the flashbacks stop about 3/4 of the way through the movie... but by then you're kinda lost.  I felt like I had no attachment to the main character, other than the fact that she was mildly attractive and kicked a whole helluva lot of ass.  But the final scene of the movie is supposed to be some kind of payoff (I think), and I just was like "meh."

   I dunno.  Prove me wrong.  Check out this movie for yourself and let me know what you think.  Maybe I just missed the point.  I was eating some particularly good pasta while watching it, so maybe I was distracted.

The Descendants

   From Netflix:  With his wife on life support in the wake of an accident, an affluent landowner tries to mend his broken relationships with his daughters. All the while, he's weighing his marriage -- and the decision to sell land his family has owned for decades.

   My Take:  Here's George Clooney in a role that I like.  He's not some crazy action guy.  He's not a mastermind.  He's not even a silly jailbird (even though I do like him in that role too).  He's a father, a guy who is relatively clueless and harmless and dealing with something that is way out of his league.

   At first I thought this was going to be a sad movie.  Then I was completely thrown by the twist in the plot.  It was still a sad movie, but it had so much more layered into it... it really was enjoyable.  I don't know if it was Clooney or the script or the music or what, but I found myself actually feeling ambivalent about what I was seeing on the screen... just like the actors.  I hope that was the goal, because it worked.

   This isn't a fun movie to watch.  It's got some tough issues.  It's very real and it's sort of defeating.  But it's worth it.  It's a good role for Clooney, the kids and really the rest of the actors were all good as well.  It's an emotional wreck, but it's genuine and that makes it worth watching.

   I was going to write about the Texans sucking.  But then they didn't suck.  So I think I'm going to reserve my judgement for now.  All I'll say is that Kubiak and the gang better wake up and realize they can't "run the clock out" on the rest of the season like they have been in their blowout games.  There are a lot of teams, even one or two in our division, who are out for blood.  Until next time...

Vote Schmote

   You probably expected me to come out of the gate with some undoubtedly brilliant writing concerning the Vice Presidential Debate.  Well, be patient my friends, it's coming.  But first I want to take a moment to once again address the problem of voter turnout in this country.  Once again I want to show you everything that's wrong with our election system and how that directly contributes to the lack of interest in voting.  And being the nice guy I am, once again I am going to offer solutions that would fix it all.

   Get Rid of the Electoral College System - This is the single biggest problem with the election system.  The electoral college takes the popular vote, crumples it up, and throws it out the window.  Oh sure it made sense, like a hundred years ago, when the election was determined by a bunch of dudes on horseback who had to travel to DC and report on the results from their states.  It might have made more sense back then for them to simply say "Texas is for Wilson" than for them to roll up with thousands of pieces of paper tucked under their arms.  But while politics may not have changed much in the last 100 years, the country has.  There is no longer a need for an electoral college.  What that does in states like, say Arizona, is give liberals and democrats absolutely no incentive to vote.  You know the state is going to go Republican, so why bother?  The election ultimately comes down to a very small group of people in a very small number of states.  And the candidates spend millions and millions of dollars lying to those people trying to get them to swing one way or the other.  That doesn't sound like Democracy to me.

   Eliminate Campaign Spending Ability - We're actually going in the WRONG direction on this problem.  What we should be doing is limiting campaign spending across the board.  No special interest groups.  No Super PACs.  Each candidate should be given a set allowance, and that allowance should be the same for each candidate.  Instead, we're allowing them to break their banks outspending one another.  And don't act like political ads don't work... I consider myself a pretty smart person, but when there are a million people on the ballot and you can't remember who's who, I have recalled those ads and let them swing my vote if for no other reason than just because it was a name I was a little bit familiar with.  That's wrong.  Honestly it's better to go in blind than to let some shitty political ad tell me which way to vote.  My point is, we are now telling candidates to "go ahead and BUY the election."  He or she who spends the most, wins.  That is not democracy, and it's also annoying because political ads are ridiculous.

   Bring Voting Online - Oh yeah, there it is, the bomb.  "Are you kidding me?  There would be so much fraud!  That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard!"  Now wait just a minute.  Before you go flying off the handle, really consider this for a minute.  How many times have you entered your social security number online?  How many times have you handed over your checking account?  Hell, I bet you give your credit card number to the damn pizza guy when you order.  The idea that there would be massive fraud during the election is sort of hilarious to me.  Don't get me wrong, I'm sure people would TRY to hack in and screw with the election... but if we can keep China from breaking in to wall street I think we can keep hackers at bay for a presidential election.  It's simple... use your social security number to log in (add a driver's license number for added security if you like), cast your vote, hit submit, then log out.  Done and done.  It's no big deal.  I just don't get why everyone makes such a mountain out of this idea... I guarantee you this would increase voter turnout at least tenfold.  I know I would be much more apt to get off my ass and vote if I didn't have to go stand in line for an hour or two.

   Ultimately, nothing is going to fix the apathy of our voters except for making them realize just how lucky they are to have the ability to vote in the first place.  I think it would be awesome if this country required every resident to visit and volunteer in a third-world country before they could gain citizenship.  Make them understand just how good we have it here, and then maybe (just maybe) they would be a little more apt to take part in the political system.  As it stands right now we can't do anything that drastic, but we can at least make it to where your vote counts for something, and so that it isn't such a pain in the ass to go do something as simple as vote.

Malarchy!

   Alright let's get to it.  The Vice Presidential Debate, while far less important in the grand scheme of things, was far more exciting than the Presidential Debate.  I'll get to the issues here in a second, but really this debate was more about character than anything.  On one side of the table, you had a young, smart, energetic, unproven Paul Ryan.  On the other side was the wildcard, the guy who could say or do anything and pretty much get away with it, the passionate Joe Biden.

   And depending on which side of the fence you were on, Biden was either a passionate, well-spoken, heartfelt supporter of Barack Obama... or a buffoon who made an ass out of himself in front of the nation.  I consider myself a moderate, but I have to say I was a little offended by Biden's actions and mannerisms.  It's one thing to be passionate... it's another thing to be rude.  He continually stepped on Ryan's lines, interrupted both Ryan and the moderator, pointed his finger, laughed at statements made by Ryan... it was kind of like watching a little kid fight with an adult.

   Ryan, on the other hand, was limp.  He was well-rehearsed, but up against someone like Biden I think that counted against him.  It came across to me like he was nervous about going off the beaten path.  He was unable to improvise, even to respond directly to a question posed to him by Biden or the moderator.  It was a safe play, but it was also one that could wind up hurting his party in the long run.  I only recall one time where he stood up to Biden's actions, and even then it was a half-attempt ("let's stop interrupting each other?"  Seriously?  That's all you got?)

   And further, the moderator in my opinion was very weak.  She allowed interruptions, she left issues without responses.  She allowed both candidates to make highly inflammatory remarks about each other, and then simply moved on to other issues.  It was like she was in a race to get to that final issue: abortion.  And really, with everything else going on in this country, is abortion really something that should be deciding this election?  You may think so.  I don't.  Not saying it's not an important issue... but I think the possibility of nuclear war with Iran and a crashing economy sort of take the front seat right now.

   One thing I don't get... why don't Romney and Ryan explain their tax plan?  I get what they're trying to say... why don't they?  It's simple.  Romney has a goal for his tax plan.  He wants to cut them across the board, and make up the difference by closing loopholes and whatnot.  That is the endgame.  How you GET to that endgame is up in the air.  It will take Democrats and Republicans working together, finding those loopholes, determining what gets closed and who needs to pay what.  If they could just figure out how to explain that, I think they would win a lot of points and actually be able to put Obama back on his heels a little bit.  But they can't.  When the moderator demands specifics, they just stand there, clammy, and the media licks its chops because it now has even more to talk about.  If I'm in the Romney campaign, I'm spending an entire meeting trying to get them to figure out how to explain what should be a simple answer to the question.  They've already wasted too much time standing there with their mouths open on this one.

   And yet, despite all of my complaining, I will say again that I think this was one of the best debates I've ever watched.  This is by far the easiest election I've ever seen.  Not to say my DECISION will be easy, but determining who stands where on the issues is, for once, not a problem.  "Romney wants tax relief for the rich," "Obama wants a welfare state," you can spin it however you want... at least you know where these guys stand on the issues.  I salute them for that.  And if nothing else, Biden sure was fun to watch.

Paul

   From Netflix:  Nick Frost and Simon Pegg star as two science-fiction freaks who, while on a quest to discover what lies at the heart of Nevada's infamous Area 51, cross paths with an alien (voice of Seth Rogen) on the run from earthly authorities. The irreverent duo that brought us Shaun of the Dead assembled an impressive cast that includes Jane Lynch, Jason Bateman, Kristen Wiig and Blythe Danner for this raucous cross-country romp.

   My Take:  Boy this one set in my DVR for a while.  Not sure why... I really like Simon Pegg and Nick Frost.  Usually I would jump at a chance to see one of their movies (well, maybe not "Hot Fuzz," but you get the point).  I think it was the concept of this movie.  A pot-smoking, foul-mouthed alien runs into two sci-fi geeks and they have an adventure.  Yawn.

   Well, I was half-right.  The movie pretty much IS what I said it was, but it wasn't nearly as boring as I thought it would be.  While definitely not "laugh-out-loud" funny, it did have some great moments.  The casting was fantastic... even Jason Bateman was surprisingly good.  Like most movies by these two, the bulk of the action takes place in the end, ramping up suddenly and not letting go until the credits roll.

   Ultimately, I will admit that I enjoyed this movie.  It's not one I would buy, but if you enjoy these guys' quirky style, you definitely won't be disappointed by what they've put together here.

Badlands

   From Netflix:  Young garbageman Kit Carruthers (Martin Sheen) and his girlfriend, Holly (Sissy Spacek), kill Holly's father in South Dakota and hit the road on the run from the law. Writer-director Terrence Malick's script (for his feature film debut), based on real murders committed by a couple in 1958, does not judge its characters as they make their way to the Badlands of Montana, leaving a trail of senseless and random murders in their wake.

   My take:  I rented this based on how much I disliked "The Tree Of Life."  I have a friend who is a huge Terence Malick fan, and while even SHE agreed that "Tree of Life" was a miss, she said "well, you gotta see 'Badlands,' THAT'S a great movie."

   I guess.

   The first strike against this movie is one that can't be helped: it's old.  It feels old.  The film quality is meh, the acting is pretty bleh, and the story overall is just kinda boring.  Malick's movies usually aren't what I would consider exciting, but at least the writing is meaningful and the cinematography is gorgeous.  I guess he was still developing these talents when he made "Badlands."  What was already well in place was Malick's sort of perverse look at life.  A dog lying dead next to a trash can and two guys have a simple conversation about it?  Yep.  A weird relationship between a mid-20's dude and a 15-year-old girl?  Check.  Sudden, heartless, stoic violence?  Got it.  These are traits that Malick has fine-tuned in his later movies, but I guess you could say this is where it all started.

   I dunno, everybody's gotta start somewhere.  But I don't think I would suggest "Badlands" as THE go-to Malick flick.  I'll just stick to "The Thin Red Line" and call it a day.  You probably should to.  If you're a huge Malick fan, chances are you've already seen this one.  Hell you might even like it.  But if you're on the fence or don't even know who the guy is, don't bother with this one.  Pass.

   You ever feel like this guy?

   The flower, not the toaster (come on, who EVER feels like a toaster?)

   Have a nice day.