2000 - 2009

CONS

• September 11th Terrorist Attack, and countless others
• Hurricane Katrina
• The War in Afghanistan
• The War in Iraq II
• October 2008 Financial Crisis
• Patriot Act
• Secret CIA prisons found in Germany
• Abu Ghraib
• Torture/Waterboarding
• Global Warming consensus reached, US refuses Kyoto
• Crash winning Best Picture
• MySpace

PROS

• First Black US President
• Facebook
• iPhone
• iPod

GOOD RIDDANCE. 

In Defense of Dane Cook

I turned on the TV today and a movie called Employee of the Month appeared. I watched it for about 13 seconds, turned the TV off, went to the bathroom, sat on the toilet and pondered this question, "Why does everyone hate Dane Cook?"

I didn't come out for 45 minutes.

I think the main reason people hate Dane Cook is that he steals jokes. But this isn't really a reason because every comic in history has stolen jokes. One might say, "Well Dane Cook steals more than others". But that isn't a justification. The guy who steals $1,000 is just as culpable as the guy who steals $1,000,000. Moral relativism doesn't exist in comedy, nor anything else.

The next reason is that he is annoying. But is that really enough to hate someone? I mean, let's face it—a lot of people have a deep-seeded hatred for the guy. I know plenty of annoying people—you do what you should've learned when you were a child—ignore them. Done.

The last possible reason someone could hate Dane Cook is because he is not good at his job—making people laugh. I don't find him funny at all. But I can't hate someone for not being good at their job when their job is to make me laugh. I mean it's comedy, who gives a shit. It's not like he's a legislator, or a judge, or a cop, or a financial analyst. Let's be honest—nothing bad can come from Dane Cook being a shitty comic. You're not going to be wrongfully accused of a crime and you're not going to have your car repo-ed. Sure he makes a crapload of money but if you hate him for that then you're clearly just jealous.

The Oldness of New

Time seems to have an interesting effect on people, or rather, the effects that time brings to a culture are interesting. I saw Avatar in theaters last week and it was astounding—both technically and narratively. It was one of the most satisfying movie-going experiences I've had in recent years and it makes me want to revise my Top Movies of 2009 entry.

The reviews of Avatar have been positive—but they haven't been as positive as I've anticipated. In fact, I was one of thirty people in the theater at a 5:40pm showing. I was expecting a full house. The consensus at the end was simply that it was "a good movie". Most of the audience cheered at the end. And while that is important, and I am satisfied with that response, it got me thinking—if it used the SFX of the day, what if Avatar came out in 1977?

Recall for a moment—Star Wars was an epic, mind-blowing, paradigm-shifting film of the 1970s (one of many). It was noted for it's technical achievements, as well as providing an immersive universe that people are still going ape shit over. It introduced unforgettable characters, worlds, stories, and (coincidentally) merchandise. I believe that Star Wars will be impossible to erase from human history. When aliens are visiting our planet thousands of years from now, and digging through the rubble, they'll have a pretty good idea of what Star Wars was really about. It's penetrated our culture as much as Stonehenge, the Pyramids of Egypt, and Snuggies. The thorn in my brain is the idea that Star Wars and Avatar aren't that much different. Yet both produced incredibly different responses—one colossal and timeless, the other not so much. And the answer, I think, lies in timing.

First, let me show you how both films compare. This is a (most probably) incomplete list of the qualities that both Star Wars and Avatar have in common. Please note though, that all of these similarities have entirely different contexts within each narrative:

• Huge-budgeted epic science fiction
• Ground-breaking technical achievements
• Directed by cinematic trailblazer
• Borrowed iconography (notably from the Western genre) supplanted into sci-fi
• Reluctant hero who rises to lead a rebellion against the fascist opposition
• Hero learns the ways of the Mystical (the Force and biological connectivity respectively)
• Mechanized war-fighting units against forest critters with bows, arrows, slings, and stone weapons (Return of the Jedi specifically and Avatar respectively)

Star Wars and Avatar are incredibly similar. Yet both received very different responses. A small part of the reason unfortunately is the World Wide Web. Forum trolls love to bash anything. If something comes out that has the potential to be successful, these trolls feel obligated to trash it. This trolling can eventually become the dominant zeitgeist and can ruin a great thing.

But I think the main issue that Avatar faces is simply the day and age. The modern movie-goer simply is harder to please. The 70s was the New Golden Era for cinema. Today, we're much too cynical. We've been saturated with remakes, reboots, re-incarnations, and sequels that we just don't give a shit anymore. We don't see anything new. In fact, this entry might be counter-productive. While I am defending Avatar and showing how similar it is to the incredibly successful and mind-blowing Star Wars, that might make one think that I'm saying it's a rip-off. But I'm not and Avatar certainly isn't. This is postmodernism at it's worst. It has failed Avatar mostly because no one really knows what postmodernism is. When Star Wars came out, no one complained that opening sequence mirrored Buck Rogers. But when the trailer for Avatar premiered, no one could stop talking about how the Na'vi looked like the Thundercats. Again, internet memes had a huge role in this.

Apparently, James Cameron has no imagination. 

Instead of seeing postmodernism as a benefit to the artistic palette, most people see it as lazy writing, directing, or storytelling. The audiences and critics require material that is 100% authentic and original. Nothing can be borrowed because we can now splice images together in Photoshop and show everyone how similar they are, even though they mean completely different things.

And because of this saturation, Avatar will only be deemed "good" rather than "on par with groundbreaking epics like Star Wars". The truth is, Avatar is this generation's Star Wars but no one will ever see it that way. And it's not simply because anything old is good or better; it's because anything new simply feels done already. Has Hollywood or anyone else run out of ideas? Absolutely not. But I definitely think the word "idea" has changed. Perhaps for the better, perhaps not.

Top Six Movies of 2009 (That I Saw)

The best movies always come out toward the end of the year (i.e. Awards Season) and it sucks because I never have any time to go see them. So at the end of February, I can't add any kind of lament or exuberance to the winners of the Academy Awards. So this is in no way the best films of the year, rather just the best ones that I saw. There may be spoilers, so if you haven't seen these films, maybe catch 'em first and come back.

The Hurt Locker

A great example of a highly calculated and executed thriller/action film is The Hurt Locker, from sorely under-utilized (although hopefully not anymore) Katherine Bigelow. But it also provides an interesting glimpse into the life of a modern day war-junkie. War is a polarizing thing. You either love it or hate it and for Jeremy Renner's character in this film—he absolutely can not function without it.

There is a moment that is a unique mixture of grotesque and hilarious. Just after Sergeant First Class William James (Renner) proves his insane war addiction, he runs down a hill, away from two other characters. Out of earshot, the two other characters decide whether or not to kill James before he gets them killed. They decide not to. This moment clearly defines the modern stage of war and sets it apart from other more "wholesome" war films.

Where the Wild Things Are

I hated children's movies when I was a child. Classic animated films and movies just never interested me and at the time I didn't know why. After watching Where the Wild Things Are, I can tell you why I stayed away from those movies.

Children's films are inherently condescending—from the subject matter, to the direction, editing, and writing. And it's understandable. Adults are condescending to children and adults make films. Anytime I'm around children and adults, I observe the way they speak to one another. Children are unequivocally honest and forthright. Adults speak to children like they are idiots. Innocence is mistaken for novelty or worse, for ignorance.

But Where the Wild Things Are refuses to submit to the children's film paradigm of condescension. So much so that children may not like the film. Unfortunately, they've been indoctrinated to accept the behavior of adults as "normal". And that really sucks.

This film captures what it means to be a child better than any children's film or book that I've ever come across. It has depth, emotion, and sincerity.

District 9

I saw an interview with Neil Blomkamp, the director of District 9, that made me believe that he will be the next visionary director along the lines of James Cameron. He was discussing the creative direction of the special effects of the film. He said that he wanted to make the SFX unintrusive to the film and to maintain the documentary-like cinéma vérité style. This of course is the complete opposite of what every director has done in the past. SFX is expensive and time consuming—what on Earth would make someone want to put it on the backburner? SFX are centerpieces but more often then not, they are also simply eye-candy. If any other director had seen the opening footage of the mothership going in and out of frame, the SFX coordinator would have been fired. But Blomkamp wanted that. Here's a guy with a SFX background working on a movie with incredible effects, and making it subjugated to the narrative. That is cinematic progress.

Besides the SFX direction, the story is superb. I read one review (can't remember from who though) that likened it to a tradition Hitchcockian thriller—the man-on-the-run-trying-to-clear-his-name pursued by two nefarious agencies. It's smart storytelling with fabulous effects.

Inglourious Basterds

This is classic Tarantino—he takes his pulp fiction sensibilities to the war genre with zero regard for history. Mad props to Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, and Christoph Waltz (who I had never heard of before this film) for their top-notch performances. After watching this film, I realized Tarantino is quite talented for creating really likable villains. Waltz's character is called the "Jew Hunter" and could be easily despised yet I found myself falling for his charm and charisma (which certainly had a lot to do with the actor's performance).

This movie is great for a lot of reasons—for one it re-affirms the idea that Nazis were the scum of the Earth and that their horrifically cinematic mutilation will not draw pity from anyone of any ethic or cultural background. And two, of the two hundred machine gun rounds fired into Hitler, at least half of them went into his face. Oh Tarantino, you would.

Star Trek

Despite the awesomeness of this movie, JJ Abrams accomplished a near-impossible task—he took quite possibly the nerdiest franchise in history and made it cool (the only other example that comes to mind is the newest TV incarnation of Battlestar Galatica, although many would maintain that it's coolness is a direct result of the casting of Edward James Almos).

But let's be honest, this movie is cool, and that may it's only flaw. Many have said that it's "a Star Trek movie for people who don't like Star Trek". Well, that might disqualify it from being a Star Trek movie in the first place, because the things that make a Star Trek movie are curiously absent. There's no rumination on space or a philosophical twist that was always so prominent in previous Star Trek installments.

Regardless of my nit-picking—this film is kick-ass. Stellar action, direction and acting from Chris Pine as Kirk. But the one who steals the show is Zachary Quinto in his portrayal of Spock.

I Love You, Man

I might get a lot of flack for this but I'll say it anyway. I Love You, Man was my favorite comedy of 2009. Yes, I liked it more than The Hangover. And I liked it for a very simple reason. Both films were hysterical in their own right but I Love You, Man felt like a smaller movie. Even though I liked Star Trek, I always tend to enjoy films that are smaller in scale. I like movies that exist in a neighborhood. The characters, emotions, and conflicts seem more honest and real.

I Love You, Man is a movie about a man looking for friendship. I think it's hilarious because of the truth behind the comedy. Despite the recent explosion of "bromance" comedy, I Love You, Man remains sincere and hilarious without submitting to the newly exploited cliche.

Skinny Guys Fight Till They're Burger

Adrien Brody and Topher Grace have been cast as the leads in the upcoming Predators film. The online film community has not taken to this idea. But they need to remember one thing: This movie will be released in 2010. Not 1988. Let me explain.

The action movie paradigm has changed a great deal in the last 20+ years. Adrien Brody has no need to fill the shoes of any actor or character. Especially Arnold Schwarzenegger. If Arnold Schwarzenegger was 35 years-old now in 2009, he would have a much tougher time getting acting gigs than he did in 1982. The super-pumped-up aesthetic of the 80s is over, thankfully. The modern male lead in an action film doesn't have to be, in and of itself, a spectacle. I've gone over much of this in a previous entry. If you'll like to read it, click here.

An actor's physique is definitely important. Woody Allen could never play Rambo. There has to be a degree of verisimilitude with an action lead. But that door swings both ways. Before Predator was shot, Schwarzenegger was actually too big. He was asked by the director to slim down to the body type of a typical Special Forces soldier. In fact, if you ever have the pleasure of meeting a typical Navy SEAL, you'll see that they look more like Topher Grace than Arnold Schwarzenegger. The military's training program doesn't focus on bodybuilding. There is a fair amount of running and obstacle negotiation. No way in hell a guy with Arnold's body could traverse a thick, mountainous jungle. He's just not built for it. Too much bulk. Special Forces operators are supposed to be small and lean.

As if actors weren't already pummeled with enough self-doubt and deprecation, the 80s added more with a crippling sense of male inferiority. Schwarzenegger and Stallone really changed the game–the body was now a separate entity from the actor. It had to be ripped to an unnatural extent. Whether this trend was a reflection of society or a creation from cinema and popular culture, I have no idea. But I do know that the paradigm has changed significantly.

And so, no, I don't have a problem with Adrien Brody taking on the lead in the new Predators film. And yes, I am a huge fan of the original Predator film and Arnold Schwarzenegger. I think Brody is a terrific actor and as such, his skills can absolutely support him in his role. I like to think that acting is enough for an actor–they don't need to be burdened with a huge set of biceps.

Why Am I Not Surprised?

Heidi Montag's Breathtaking Performance

Oddly enough this is my second blog about Heidi Montag.

I would like to comment, not on Heidi and her performance at the Miss Universe pageant, but rather on the news coverage of her performance. Apparently, Mrs. Montag "tried to be" Britney Spears circa 2000 but "was" Millie Vanilli circa 1989. The public lashings from her uninspired performance have not stopped since.

Now, I don't want to defend Heidi Montag because I think she is utterly talentless. But come on, people. It's pop music from an ex-reality show co-star. Were you planning on being wowed?

And really, it's not even the ex-reality show co-star thing that sets the expectation. I'm sure that at some point, with the huge volume of reality shows being produced, there has to be a few cast members with genuine talent. The thing that should set the expectation level is the fact that it's pop sex music. She is swimming in an ocean of facade and artificiality.

This musical styling is made not because it's been rattling inside the heart and mind of an aspiring singer/songerwriter. It was made to be produced, packaged, and consumed. That's it. Heidi Montag didn't lie awake for weeks on end writing down lyrics like:

If you're in it for real
Go ahead, put it in me
I know that you want me
So take me

Heidi Montag probably didn't know this song existed until a week before she recorded it in a studio. So why does this matter? What about the performance?

Well, as I stated before–she's utterly talentless. So that's why she lip synced it. There's no way in hell she could have actually sang and danced like that in a live performance. But I don't think people should be as angry with her as they are. There was no effort or motivation put into producing the song that she sang or any future songs that she plans on singing, except to make money. It's sex pop. I mean, if the song and dance were entertaining enough, then sex pop wouldn't also come along with skimpy outfits. You wouldn't need it. Why should it have been a great performance? It's just to be consumed anyway. There's no art to it. I'm not saying everything has to be some artistic endeavor but this is clearly a sex pop song for teenage girls. How much gusto do you think she was willing to put into it? How spectacular were you people expecting it to be? And yes, Britney Spears put on a great performance at the MTV VMAs in 2000. And her mind and spirit have been slowly breaking down ever since.

Maybe Heidi is trying to protect her psyche. Who knows?

Why Twitter Needs to Be Stopped

Twitter is a child in the street screaming at the top of his lungs for more ice cream.

This is a response to a Datamation blog written by Mike Elgan called "Why the Twitter Haters Are Wrong".

They are not wrong. Twitter is arguably the worst thing for any society, regardless of political, economic, or cultural background.

Elgan's argument is that Twitter is free from criticism because it is simply a medium and not responsible for the knuckle-heads who use it. I strongly disagree. I believe, in the way Jerry Mander thinks that the television set is inherently evil and working against human beings, Twitter is–by the nature of it's programming–destructive to normal society.

On most other occasions, I strongly endorse personal responsibility. People shouldn't tweet about the minutiae of their lives every half-hour. But they do and it is then the rest of society's responsibility to not follow or listen to them. But this doesn't matter because even if we don't listen, people are still tweeting about the random crap in their pathetic lives.

Elgan quotes an article from the UK's Times Online which claims that tweeting "stems from a lack of identity"–in other words, tweeting=insecurity. Elgan responds by bringing attention to the fact that the Times Online article was only talking about a small subset of Twitter users. He claims that Twitter is not self-indulgent, narcissistic, or shallow but rather only this small demographic (young people) is.

Mike Egan says that in order to bypass the insecure and shallow on Twitter, simply do not follow them. But that does not stop them from being shallow and insecure. Twitter is a vessel for the insecure. On what planet can you have a worthwhile discourse with someone when you can only use 140 characters? The dictionary on my computer defines Twitter as "a series of short, high-pitched calls or sounds" and "idle or ignorant talk". Is this really what we've been obsessing over? Is this what has taken the world by storm? Idle or ignorant talk? What has become of us?

But even if you do choose to not follow them, the insecurity remains. Twitter isn't like a text message (which are generally much smaller than 140 characters) to one person, rather it is an announcement to the world. Regardless of the merit of the tweet (which for the most part is nonexistent), it is intrinsically insecure to make announcements to the world on such a frequent basis.

Moreover, it is quite narcissistic to think that all is dandy when you simply look the other way. Twitter is equipping individuals to be insecure, shallow, and narcissistic regardless of whether or not you follow them. The problem doesn't just go away when you choose not to listen. The problem is Twitter, not these people. Before Twitter, insecure and narcissistic people did not have a portal to illustrate their insecurity and narcissism, especially on a global scale. Elgan akins annoying Twitter users to annoying telephone callers–you don't get mad at the telephone when you get the call. But there is a huge difference between Twitter and a telephone.

First off, people do not use the telephone as much as they use Twitter. Individuals tweet 10-15 times a day. I might make 10-15 telephone calls in a week. When I call someone I am making a connection to one specific individual or location. When I tweet, I am offering an announcement to whoever is listening at a global scale. I can also have an intelligent conversation with someone on a telephone while on Twitter I have to wrack my brain to think of how to fit 200 characters into 140.

Now this all is not to say that every Twitter user is an egotistical self-indulgent narcissist. All I'm trying to get at is that Twitter facilitates this kind of behavior. In fact, this is really what it does best.

The sheer volume of tweets makes them all inconsequential. White noise eventually becomes a silence in itself. True, you can choose to follow whomever you wish but the fact remains–twitterers tweet a lot and mainly about nothing. Twitter is useless as a social tool. Human beings do not and should not communicate 140 characters at a time.

So besides casual chit-chat, Twitter is also being used as a marketing tool. I can't stress enough how ineffective it is. Businesses tweet to inform consumers about new deals and products and they generally get yelled at for spamming ads.

The last thing that Elgan mentions that I completely abhor is the idea that Twitter can be a breaking news resource. This idea goes back to my last blog about blogger responsibility.

No. Twitter can not and should not be used as a breaking news resource. Absolutely not. Let me explain.

I do realize that there are reputable publications that have Twitter accounts and that their news updates can be useful. But Twitter is a dangerous tool for news and editorial content because everyone is now a journalist/reporter. Early this year, a plane crashed in the Hudson River in New York and a man named Janis Krums not only witnessed it but took a photo and uploaded it to his Twitter account. He was the first "journalist" on scene and he was the first person to cover the story. It was an incredible day for everyone–all the passengers were saved, the world received first-hand information from a completely unbaised source, and Janis Krums was made a celebrity who appeared on MSNBC, Good Morning, America, and other TV shows.

But not everyone can be a journalist but everyone can be a Twitterer. There is training, education, ethics, practices, that must be mastered before you can start reporting. You have to get the story right before you send it out. There must be fact-checkers and editors. But now, everyone is a reporter and the information that is spread can be misunderstood, skewed, or just flat out wrong. And with the volume of tweets that pour in, no one can be sure about who is correct.

I suggest reading Jerry Mander's Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. Whether you decide to throw your TV out the window or not, this book makes a good argument about technology in general. It is widely accepted that technology is "neutral" and that it can only be used for unscrupulous purposes when placed in the wrong hands. Mander's book argues that this is not so and I believe that Twitter is another example of how technology isn't benign but that they work against us even when we aren't using them.

Speculating the Future of Publications

I have just read in a recent issue of Time magazine that the Ann Arbor newspaper, Anne Arbor News has closed down and transitioned into an online-only publication. Before Anne Arbor, it was the Rocky Mountain News in Denver which closed after 149 years of business. And I fear that this trend will continue in the years to come. This may sound like a depressing blog but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Currently, the only move a publication can make to sustain itself is to move into a digital format ie online. While it's cheaper and more efficient, it is also tougher to monetize. Some online publications are taking steps to ensure that their writers, editors, and staff members are getting paid. Washingtonpost.com requires an account membership to view most of it's content. Soon, I'm afraid that they will be charging for content. The only reason to be fearful of this idea is that, most of the time, people don't like to pay for things that they normally get for free.

The New York Times has a great little application called The New York Times Reader which is an Adobe Air app. It is a scalable auto-updating app that lets you read The New York Times in a sleek off-line window. You can subscribe to the Reader for $3.75/week.

So some publications are protecting themselves, some are not, and some simply can't. Some are simply too small to compete. And as fewer and fewer publications survive, the World Wide Web will be the only sustainable source of information. It's cheap, easy to access, and anyone can contribute. And therein lies the problem.

The great thing about newspapers and magazines is that they have editors and fact-checkers. Bloggers do not. Bloggers can literally say whatever they want and their blogs can be read by anyone all over the world. This is a dangerous concept.

Having said that, here is my timeline of the next 25 years:

The Approaching Storm: 2010 - 2015
Most of the small market newspapers have shut down or gone to an online-only format. The major papers will survive (New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, a few others) but cling desperately to life. The web however has grown significantly. Nearly everyone is a blogger of some kind either through blogging sites, Twitter, Facebook, or other sites. The volume of information explodes and as a result the reliability of this information wains.

The Dark Age of Information: 2015 - 2025
Nearly all newspapers and publications cease their traditional paper circulation. As the web explodes with content, online publications become lost in the fray. Information, regardless of merit or credibility, is consumed and spread. Few blogs and sites are reliable because no one is being paid to research and fact-check. The quality of information and content also plummets. In this time, all web content mirrors YouTube content of today. In other words, it's 99% crap. Not only is this the Dark Age of Information but it is also the Dark Age of Business and Innovation. As the credibility of information is threatened in the way that it is, global infrastructures become weakened and innovation comes to a screeching halt.

The Quiet Revolution: 2025 - 2030
An awakening has begun–a quiet revolution. The world is tired of unreliable information and socioeconomic stagnation. They want rich content, not fluffy or bogus stories and information. Bloggers become responsible in their posts. They do research and begin fact-checking. They don't update their blog or micro-blog or Facebook or whatever every hour. They wait for something relevent to happen. They start writing about relevent topics. As a result, web traffic and content slowly begins to plateau and then decline.

The Return of the Editor: 2030 - 2035
A new system is born out of the catastrophe that was the end of modern publications. I have no idea what this will look like–perhaps a new technology is born where documents can be downloaded onto an ultra-thin paper-like material. Perhaps information can be directly downloaded into an individual's brain. Perhaps things just stay on the web, if it still exists. Whatever the system is, one thing has definitely changed: People are being paid to write, fact-check, and edit content. And as a result, information is more reliable and the world works more efficiently. Individuals realize that not everyone should be spreading information because not everyone is capable of editing and fact-checking.

How editors and writers get paid is another question. The idea of paying for information is nothing new but it sort of is. I can go on Google and get millions of pages of information for free. Probably about .o1% of it is relevant and reliable. But I've never had to pay for that information. Perhaps in the future, I will. People need to realize that information is as important as the food we eat, which we are willing to pay for. You wouldn't eat spoiled food just because it is free. The same goes for information. In the end, you're not simply paying for information–you're paying for credibility, reliability, and an earnestness toward truth.

Having said all of that, I am fact-checking right now. Everything seems okay. I just want to add a disclaimer to this so I don't seem hypocritical. This is clearly speculation. I have no idea if anything is going to come to fruition. I hope it doesn't. But I just wanted to illustrate a possibility. If you don't want this to happen, all I can recommend is that you purchase a newspaper subscription and appreciate the importance of credible and reliable information.

-Edited by Jenna Boswell

Sweet Marketing Job

Vampire chicks are so cliched.

How Much Pregnant Are You?

In past entries, I've talked about the horrors of TV ads and what they do to the human condition. But as I watch more of them, it becomes more and more apparent that TV ads aren't coming from super-intelligent ad-men with nefarious plans. As it turns out, they are coming from absolute morons who are just trying to sell you shit.

Last night, I watched a commercial for Plan B, an aptly named emergency contraceptive. The thing that really baffled me was the way they describe the process in which Plan B works. There is a voice-over narration that says something to the effect of, "The sooner you use Plan B, the better it works," and that tickles me. So basically if you take Plan B right away, you won't be as pregnant as you would if you waited, say, nine months.

I think it's funny to pick out flaws in things that cost millions of dollars.

I Do Not Like the Movie Accepted

This movie does two things wrong:

1. It patronizes an alternative approach to education.
2. The climax is completely contradictory to the main theme of the movie. 

The movie is about a group of post-high schoolers who aren't accepted to any colleges so they make one up to trick their parents into thinking they did. And along the way they "learn" things about education and the system that robs kids of their ideals and passions. From my personal experience, this is completely untrue. If anything, my personal awakening of my talents and interests happened during college - which was at a fairly large state school. 

But the crux of the movie is that a traditional four-year college education isn't necessary and that an alternative education is just as valid and useful in the real world. I totally agree with that. But this movie took that idea and put it in the head of a fourteen year-old. So an alternative education means you learn about skateboarding and you build ramps and you lay by a pool and just talk about stuff. No, I'm sorry that is not an education. Alternative education doesn't mean you don't learn math, science, history, english, etc - rather it means the methods used to teach those subjects are different. This movie really discredits the idea of alternative education. And that's not a good thing. The modern educational system is very flawed, and it does rob kids of their creativity, but not in the way this movie describes it. The movie should have focused on the system's emphasis of "instructor appeasement". By this I mean that success in school is directly related to how much you satisfy a teacher's expectations. But no, this movie says that kids are robbed of their creativity because they have to study a lot and use energy drinks. Well folks, the truth is, if you don't study a lot in college, then something's wrong. 

The climax could have been fine if they cut it short by about two minutes. Justin Long gives a speech about how their system of alternative education is just as valid as a traditional education to the Board of Education (I think). And at the end he grabs the back of his chair, looks down, and finally says that he doesn't care about their approval. He claims that the board has already judged them by the way they look and that no matter what, they will always remember the ideals that were instilled in them at their fake college. The ideals being that they don't need approval from people of authority and that they're way of learning is just as good. So after he tells the board he doesn't need their approval, what does he do? 

HE FUCKING WAITS FOR THEIR APPROVAL!

He even throws his chair at them in disgust after his speech. Yet he waits silently for their approval. The movie should have ended with him and his posse aka the student body marching out of the court house or wherever it was and leaving triumphant if not a little self-righteous. But no, this movie completely turns it's back on what he was just saying. Because they waited and received approval from the board, they just became a part of the system. They aren't alternative in neither name nor practice. They are just self-righteous people who don't want to go to math class but want a college degree. I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. 

Ok, I know what you're saying: "It's just a teen comedy, don't take it so seriously." 

And I wouldn't take it seriously if this wasn't also a message movie, but it is. If this was a movie where a bunch of kids made up a school because they didn't like math class, I honestly would be okay with that. But because this movie makes statements about the system of education, alternative education, and what those two things mean, I have to comment. I have to take it seriously because this movie talks about serious things. The fact that it's a teen comedy is irrelevant. On a side note, it really pisses me off that most people think comedies are free from analysis. Just because they make you laugh doesn't mean you can't discuss them. Not every comedy is just made to be consumed. 

This movie also sucks because you want to hate the villains (the crew from a traditional four-year college) but at the end of the movie, everything that they had to say was right. The fake college demeans real education and it makes a mockery of an alternative approach. 

Oh yeah, I almost forgot – it's not that funny either. 

The Shameless Ads on Facebook

I'm sure everyone knows that the ads that you see on Facebook are directed to you specifically based on keywords that you use on your profile, photos, etc. But aside from the CIA data-mining, this is not the worst thing Facebook does. For me, it's the most shameful ads on Facebook; these "Grant Check" scams and Google Ad money games that are bating college kids and people unfortunate enough to really suffer during these tough economic times.

I guess this blog is to warn those desperate folks out there who think it's legit because it is not. If you click on one of those tempting ads telling you how easy it is to make 5 or 10 thousand dollars from Google or from government stimulus checks, you'll notice a few things.

1. All the websites are exactly the same. It has a green header with some headline about how "Josh" or "Jake" or "Steve" or "Kevin" made $5,000 from Google or some stimulus check. They tell their story about how easy it is and how much their life has changed. It's a little suspect that all the sites look the same but it could be just a form of design congruence from the person who set them all up. But the thing that really sent me over, as I looked at these sites, were the comments – they too are all the same.
2. The checks are obviously photoshopped. You'll notice on the check photo they use that a) it's the same photo on every site, and b) the name on the check has been photoshopped (poorly at that) to match different people.
   
   
   
   
3. The actual people are fake. In one, Kevin Hoeffer is a firefighter and father of three and recieved a check for $5000 from Google. In another ad, he worked at a manufacturing plant and has no kids and received a check from the federal government for $12,000. And the same pictures of him are used. How stupid do they think people are?
   

It really pains me to know that there are people out there suffering from the fall of the economy. But it infuriates me to know that other people are somehow profiting off their suffering.

Wolverine, where art thou?

When word about a Wolverine spin-off movie hit the interweb, I was just as excited as next guy. And let's face it, a Wolverine movie would be for men and men only. I'm sorry but I've tried to explain the metaphorical and allegorical properties of his infamous berserker attack to many women and none of them really get it. As I see it, his devastating attack is a commentary on the damaged modern male psyche - a condition only explicable if you were part of a secret government weapons project or raised by a single mother. And as I see it, there really isn't much difference between the two.

Then came the title – X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It's a great title because immediately you start thinking about other titles in this possible franchise. X-Men Origins: Gambit, X-Men Origins: Storm, X-Men Origins: Magneto, etc.

Then came the cast – Hugh Jackman reprising his role from the earlier X-Men films, always a good sign. Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool which may or may not be the greatest casting decision in comic book movie history. I think Reynolds is the only ripped-up model type actor that I can take seriously as both a bad-ass and as a solid comic presence. Muscles and humor never go well together.

Like (as bad an example as this is) Carrot Top. While not the funniest guy around, if he stopped working out, lost his shredded physique, I might be able to laugh at his jokes. Maybe. I just can't take him seriously as a comic and believe me, I totally get the paradoxical nature of that comment.

You're destroying what little career you have left, sir.

But about Jackman, I mean, personally, I wasn't too happy seeing him as Wolverine in the first film. Wolverine is supposed to be 5'3". Jackman is like 6'1". But he somehow made it work, at least for me. I grew to appreciate his take on the role. But the casting of Liev Schreiber as Sabertooth – that decision was very brave. In the first X-Men film, Sabertooth is played by someone who could actually be Sabertooth in real life. But he didn't have much presence other than his size and physicality. And Schreiber is tall but he isn't imposing by any means. I think casting him was a good decision only because he can become Sabertooth. And since this is an origin story, it works.

So obviously I've been pumped for a long time.

And then this giant dark cloud casted on the set and all the people involved. Buzz about Gavin Hood not being in control of his set and a series of re-shoots and Fox Studio execs changing things around had flooded the internet. It did not look good. And now I just read about ANOTHER set of re-shoots for Wolverine. The movie is due out in a few months. This does not bode well.

And the thing that is kind of unsettling about the whole thing is that, I don't really care. I went from being really excited for a movie to not caring at all about it. I remember reading about all the terrible things and then watching the trailer and thinking – meh. And then I started asking why I thought that. I should have been really excited for it. Maybe it's a sign that I'm getting older and I just don't get excited for things like that anymore.

The Little Problem with Taoism

I can't help but be in a constant zen-like state at work because I don't really do anything. I usually get all the work I need to get done by 11:00 a.m. so I'm mainly sitting around reflecting on my life until something I need to do lands on my desk.

And in my time of doing nothing today, I thought about taoism and being zen and how it may be the best thing for people. Taoism insists that people stop getting all worked up over the crap that drives them bonkers. There's a principle of Taoism called wu wei, which can be easily defined as "not getting in your way". For example, I would be much more content if I were to casually walk down the street with no destination in mind then if I were to have somewhere to go. If I had a place to be then I would be in a position to stress out about it. Maybe there's traffic and I can't cross the street. What if I'm late? What if I'm meeting someone? What if they aren't there when I get there? What if I'm going to the wrong place? But if I'm just outside walking around, there is no issue.

But as I thought about it, I realized an inherent contradiction in Taoism and wu wei. As it turns out, not having a goal is still a goal. If I say, I'm not going to have a goal today, then I did in fact start a goal. Knowing me (a neurotic defeatist), if my goal in life was to have no goal, I would stress out about not being able to accomplish it. I imagined myself as the person aimlessly walking down the street. I'd be so paranoid about accidentally doing something of significance. Like if I walked into a store and thought that maybe this was my subconscious goal. Then I'd leave in a haste and wonder if it's a goal of mine to leave here quickly in an attempt to preserve my original goal of not doing anything. It's a vicious circle.

But like I said, Taoism and wu wei are good for people because most people are normal. Unfortunately, doing nothing in my book is monumentally important.