It's that time again. Let's see how I read them this time around. (Links are at the League of Women's Voters site.
Proposition 91. Transportation Funds, State of California
"Prop. 91 is NO LONGER NEEDED. Please VOTE NO."
Um ... when the argument FOR the proposition starts with,
Proposition 92. Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees
State of California
This one is tricky. On the one hand, I'm half a step away from thinking all community college should be free, or maybe a cost break for maintaining a certain standard. My real problem with this is it doesn't suggest how they'll maintain the lowered fee. Education is grossly underfunded, but creating laws that lower a main source of income for higher education (tuition) without addressing teacher retention, salaries, special programs, etc. just seems like a waste of time. While I'm all for as many people in college as possible, as written, I don't like 92. NO
Proposition 93. Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office, State of California
There are already term limits on legislators in California. I'm not sure why we need to write more rules on it, especially considering the current term lengths are much longer than they should be. NO
Proposition 94, 95,96,97. Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact, State of California
I don't normally lump Propositions together, but these four appear to be exactly the same thing only for different Tribes in Riverside and San Diego counties. If you prefer one over the other, you're probably in one of those Tribes and don't like the other Tribes. Regardless, these propositions basically increase the number of slot machines they can have in their respective casinos.
Ultimately, this appears to be a question of whether or not one has a problem with increased gambling. My one sticking point is the fact that none of the provisions require increased revenues for the state. For example, increased gambling could possibly increase crime, but there are no provisions to increase police. Money is always needed for education, but there is nothing that states that money needs to be spent on education. The four Tribes in question will surely make more money, but aren't required to share their new found wealth with anyone, for anything.
I am traditionally against these kinds of things but I have no real issue with gambling ... it's a choice. If there was a guarantee for shared revenues, then this would be a no-brainer. With no guarantee I'm inclined to be skeptical. I need some feedback, I have a month. Undecided
Hopefully this was helpful.
I recently read Camus' "The Fall." It was a quick read, I think I got through it in two days (perhaps that was my problem), and I have to say I'm a bit confused by the reviews. In the reviews it talks about how the author, a lawyer, ends up looking back on his life and feeling he was a fool (for lack of a better way of putting it).
Granted, I talked to my dad and got the sense of what the reviewers said, but one thing I feel everyone overlooked was the man himself. In the book he talked about how he did all these great and wonderful things to feel good about himself. He helped the poor, he assisted with people who didn't have what he had, all because that was what he was supposed to do to be a good person.
If a person lives a life of "false" charity, is he/she a good person? Is a good deed any less good because the motivations aren't necessarily pure?
Prison Break, the Fox (I think) show about the guy who tattoos the plans for a prison on his body in order to break his death row brother out of this prison. I'm not going to lie, much like ROME, this show is crap.
Unlike Rome however, there's no nudity in Prison Break (most likely because it's prime time and not HBO). Nevertheless, I bought the first season of Prison Break on DVD and began watching. I found myself unable to do anything in my free time except watch this show to its conclusion. Let's look at some of the ridiculous things that happen in this show. NOTE: If you haven't seen it yet, and are planning on watching it, there are spoilers in here.
First of all, he's tattooed the entire plans of the place on his body. Never mind that you can't really tell until they're shown, and even then, you still can't tell, the main character (Michael Scoffield) can see them (so can the psychotic dude that was his cellmate for a while). In the first couple of episodes this wasn't a big deal. The show revolved around the tattoo being signals and clues of what he needed, not the actual plans themselves. The size of a screw, the location of pressure points in a wall, etc., but as the show progressed, it turned into a full blown blueprint of everything the prison had, right down to the original plumbing system (and the three subsequent overlays of plumbing) over the past 100 years or so. These are some detailed plans and like it or not, if Scoffield had the real estate on his body equivalent to a 7 foot, 800 pound man, he's still not going to have enough skin for this much detail.
Second, the speed at which things happen in the universe of Prison Break. Scoffield has been corroding a pipe in medical over the course of a couple weeks, the day the break is planned a custodian notices this pipe is corroding. A couple hours later, when the prisoners are in the room with the corroded pipe, they notice it has been replaced. And not by another pipe, similar to the original, this pipe is a full blown high pressure elbow joint that one might see on an aircraft carrier designed to move jet fuel. The only reason anyone moves this fast on a repair job is if the pipe is on a ship, and the ship is sinking because of it.
Third, the group of convicts that are getting out. They start out as a bunch of assholes intent on killing each other, next thing you know they're buddies with a secret. Granted, it's a big secret, and they only have to get along until they've escaped, but one guy in particular, T-Bag (yes, I caught the significance of the nickname) is absolutely crazy in the first couple episodes. It was as if the writers decided to make him more "likable" in the interest of the public.
Fourth, the Taj Majal. The warden (Stacey Keach) is a guy who loves his wife and is building (at work) at model of the Taj Majal for their anniversary. Unfortunately he's not much of an engineer, so it's collapsing on him. In comes Michael Scoffield, structural engineer. Scoffield is able to help the warden with his anniversary gift. Luckily for Scoffield, ONE support brings the whole thing down when it's moved. Sorry, if you build it properly, one mini support, while important, isn't going to cause a catastrophic failure...that's just a bad design. Granted, he could have done this on purpose, but the need for the support to fail wasn't necessary until the model was completed.
Lastly (at least for this post), the "history" of each inmate. This is the episode that made me realize that this show was probably never intended to make it past week 6 or 7. They give a brief history of each inmate involved in the break out. We already know Scoffield's story, but they do it again anyway. We know his brother's story, we see it again. But they cover everyone else, right down to the guy who gets dishonorably discharged from the Army...funny thing, if the Army guy was discharged for the reasons stated in the show, he probably would have fought it, and probably would have won. Had he NOT won (which he didn't), he would have been tried and convicted of smuggling contraband ... which would have put him into a military prison, at least for a while. Yet he somehow convinces his wife he's still in the Army and stationed in Iraq ... all while couped up in prison. This ONE episode does the "Lost" trick of personal history of the characters. Unlike Lost though, they do everyone all in one episode. If we're supposed to empathize with their past, we need more than a scratch on the surface (not to mention that the guys we know nothing about (Sucre and ... I've forgotten his name, the army guy in the above story) in this maximum security prison are really good guys who just made a mistake .
Initially, one can empathize with Scoffield, his brother, and at least one of the other inmates (if not two or three). But as soon as people start dying as a result of the plan, the empathy is harder to hold on to. The writers justify this by creating this outrageous plotline of a huge government conspiracy (think 24, only the "company" is way more corrupt and has much more power -- that's a post for another time) that will likely exonerate everyone...so the end would justify the means. This show has so many holes in its plot that even writing them down as the show goes on you'd still miss some of them. That being said however, it does what tv is supposed to do, it keeps you entertained. There are instances where it seems annoyingly convenient for certain things to happen (the fixed pipe, for example) but once one gets over it and enjoys it for what it is, entertainment, it is nearly impossible to stop watching. Most reality shows are no different in this aspect.
If you start watching the show just remember one thing, you've started watching a show in which the basic premise is an upstanding guy, super smart, who commits a crime to get into prison in order to break his brother out, and does so with the help of a giant tattoo he has on his upper body. If you can get past that, you'll probably love the show.
One other thing (and this doesn't hurt), I've always thought Robin Tunney was hot ... don't know why, and add the red-headed doctor (Sarah Wayne Callies(?) ... one can watch the show just because of these two.
Rome, the HBO original series, is the new show that I've decided to watch. I should say a couple of things striaght out before I give some commentary about it.
If you're looking for something historically significant, don't watch it.
If you want something that doesn't have nudity, don't watch it.
If you want simple, don't watch it
if you don't want to think while watching, don't watch it...
...but if you want entertaining, this is a great show. I don't know the politics of such things, I could care less about Hollywood, but I sincerly think this show is as trashy as some of the soaps of old. Does that mean I don't like it? No.
I LOVE THIS SHOW.
I know enough of ancient history and Hollywood (yes, I put them together) to know that this is a show that 1) is bad, and 2) is entertaining. Perhaps I've fallen to the simplicity of the old fashioned soap (I fell once before for Young and the Restless back in the early 90s...it happens), but I love the first season of this show.
It took a while for me to figure it out. Now, 8 episodes into the first season, I finally caught it. There are a couple of really likable characters...Pullo and Virenus have basically become the main characters and both of them are incredibly likeable. Atia is definitely evil, and her "rival," Servilia is still up in the air as to whether or not she's evil or just responding to circumstance....but the funny thing is the real unlikeable characters are most of the women. Caesar fluctuates, Pompeii, the same, as does everyone else. Their allies and enemies, aside from the aforementioned women, also fluctuate, but now that I'm in episode eight, the good guys and bad guys are clear (an aside, the guy that plays Brutus, I'm not convinced of anything he's doing. I don't know if it's good acting of not ... it's not bad acting, it's just not believable, he's supposed to be Caesar's friend, but the directors have decided to make him a Caesar hater ... hard to categorize at this point).
OK, I admit, I love the gratuitous nudity* . Does the show need it (aside from my love of it)? Absolutely not. The show would be more appealing to a larger group of people without it. It's as if Hollywood has decided that the degredation of Rome started with Caesar (Julius). The fact is the "Fall of Rome" doesn't really occur for another few hundred years.
The "feminization" of Rome, the lack of discipline, is annoying, but once one gets past that, it's just good, clean, crap television, and I am starting to love every minute of it.
Thanks to HBO for screwing up the Roman Empire in a way that only Hollywood can. I appreciate it. My only fear is the belief that people who don't know will consider it truth.
2000 years ago...it's probably not that big a deal.
* no, I don't love the gratuitously naked men, and as of yet, Virenus' wife hasn't gotten naked yet..very annoying.
I started actual posting on this site about five years ago. It hasn't panned out the way I wanted, entry upon entry, like some sort of sports type vehicle moving along the autobahn at an ungodly speed, but it has moved steadily along as a reliable clunker that's on its last legs that for some reason, still keeps going.
I'd like to make some sort of attempt to change that, but I say that all the time. In fact, my first entry ever, Introduction to the introduction of my personal essays starting at 30, actually makes the same reference. I'll go ahead and leave it alone and say it would be nice to discipline myself and get good essays out, but I think it will just be resigned to the first drafts that normally make the print. Perhaps someday I'll come back and re-edit, but not today.
Today I'm going to give a top 5. I'm not feeling overly ambitious, so I just previewed the titles of old entries and pulled out a few that I remember enjoying. Then, I read those few, and ranked them. I may have completely missed some real genius, but these are the ones from the very few I actually previewed. So, without further delay:
5. Hate Physics
I'm probably including this one because I think it's the first thing I wrote that actually got a comment from someone random. Granted, that comment was in reference to physics itself, and the author of the comment found it because he did a google search for "hate physics," its amazing I didn't start simply titling articles with common sayings, like "life sucks."
4. Poetry is Stupid
Yes, it is. It's very stupid. Granted, lots of things in life are stupid, and there is some poetry that is tolerable. But in general, it's stupid. Funny thing...although it's stupid, this entry includes a poem. Go figure that hypocricy.
3. Dumb But Tough
There really is no way to describe this. This guy is about as tough as they come and very definitely a complete moron. Chop off your arm to save your life...one has to admire that, but still...easily avoidable situation in today's day and age.
2. Bad Athletes
I remember thinking along these lines ages ago. Even growing up ... though it was usally in reference to swimming, as it was the only sport I played that I actually had some skill in...and I don't recall ever putting this much thought into it, but same difference. As adults, most of those kids would probably appreciate it, considering how many people wander around without any clear direction.
1. Idiot Drivers
Hands down, my favorite essay of all of these for a number of reasons. First off, it's one that I'm severely disappointed in because I just did it off the cuff...like everything else...but had I given it some real effort and thought, it would have kicked some serious ass. As it's written however, it's still not half bad. It's also one that I was pretty sure would be a top entry even before I wrote it, regardless of it's quality. People can relate to it (at least my target audience, which is anyone with a brain and can drive). If I could consisently create entries that everyone could relate to, I'd get many more hits. I made another attempt at this idea with MORONS, but it didn't hit the mark quite as well. Maybe Morons should have made the top five...I guess I couldn't put the only decent entries in the top five. The whole point is to get people to read the stuff.
OK, so, it's a list. It's a place to start. I'd like to think I'll start consistent entries, but it's all just talk. I could make a New Year's Resolution ... right. That assumes I think I need to change in some way. Fat and bald ... what's more perfect than that ... especially at Christmastime.
I'm not sure how to review this movie. It kicks ass, but it does have problems. My suggestion is to see it. That being said, I really don't know of any other way to review it than to go over each aspect and say why I didn't like it, because I can't understand why I did (like it). I think perhaps it's because I saw the series a number of times and just don't like what they did with some of the characters. That being said, if you click the *more* link, there are nothing but spoilers.
I’m tired of the standard reviews one sees for movies. A movie is good, or bad, based on its own merits…sure…and provided there is plenty of nudity and explosions, the movie is generally considered good. Times change however, and as a result of less nudity on the silver screen (though I will admit the explosions have gotten better) I have decided a new format for rating movies is required. This new system has worked for me in the past, I see no reason why it should not work here.
First of all let’s look at the plots. Dodgeball is a well articulated, well written piece of literary genius. It has taken a game that is older than dirt and turned it into a masterful story of good overcoming evil in a roundabout sort of way. The good guys are the good guys, the bad guys are the bad guys. There is no confusion. Spiderman II’s storyline is one that has been rewritten time and time again…it is not new, it is not refreshing. It is dry and has long since ben worn out.
How about the characters? Dodgeball has new, vibrantly generated characters that have never before been seen by the audience. Spiderman II is a remake of an old story (albeit a comic). No new characters, nothing special is generated. Even the bad guy, not seen in the first movie, is redundant. A researcher who takes his research a step too far. He’s a nice guy who has gone mad. Why can he just not be a "bad guy?" What’s wrong with having a badguy who is a shithead? Dodgeball has a bad guy who is a shithead…why does Spiderman II have a problem with this (I could ask why Spiderman I had a problem with this...but I'll not)?
What about plot twists? Dodgeball has a pretty generic plot twist – but even as simple and one dimensional as it is (the good guy gives in because he’s afraid he’ll lose) … at least it’s something!!! Spiderman II can’t even come up with an age old trick, it has to regenerate something from the previous movie. Were this Spiderman V I could understand, bring the stupid goblin guy back – but not in the movie after he died. Give me a break.
How about the heroine? Christine Taylor is infinitely more attractive than Kirsten Dunst. Kirsten is a hottie, but the only possible comparison between the two would be if they were both naked onscreen at the same time. Again, Kirsten would lose, but the viewer would be staring at Christine and as such wouldn’t notice Kirsten's fallacies.
Then there’s the ever popular slap in the face at the end. Dodgeball’s slap? Discovery that the hot chick is as was feared … then we find out she’s not, the slap turns out to be a hummer (not the H2 variety) – that’s a nice way to get shit on at the end of a movie (I’m being figurative, not literal). Spiderman II – all we learn is that Toby Maguire is not gay. Big deal, it’s understood he’s not – how do we know (despite how hard the director tried to get us to believe he was gay in the first one)? We know because Spiderman came out in the late 50s/early 60s (I don’t know). Were Spiderman gay he would not have become a successful superhero (sorry, but in the 50s and 60s this was definitely true).
What about the hero’s dilemma? Spiderman II’s dilemma operates under the premise that all that is required to become a superhero is the desire. This is a great message to send to the youth of the world…want to be Spiderman? You just have to want it enough. GREAT!!! Next thing you know we’ll have all sorts of kids jumping off buildings trying to save the world with their non-superpowers because they really want to be a superhero. Dodgeball’s hero has no dilemma (yes, he had the thing about being afraid he’d lose, but I covered that already).
Dodgeball has a pirate. Spiderman II does not.
Dodgeball has lumberjacks. Granted, those lumberjacks lose (which is perhaps the only major plot hole – but it is expected), but Spiderman II doesn’t even talk about chopping down trees.
In the final analysis, I’d have to say that Spiderman II isn’t worthy of holding the jockstrap of Dodgeball. Dodgeball is cinemagraphic genius. Spiderman II is an entertaining movie that I have, unfortunately compared to a masterpiece. Spiderman II would beat Stepford Wives, but I don’t have the patience to actually sit through that entire movie. See them both once. See Dodgeball as many times as you can.