Two-And-A-Half Stars
Oh look, another Jeff Bridges movie. After having just played the lead in True Grit, The Dude takes on two roles in this overly-complex and unremarkable sci-fi film that can lead some people scratching their heads trying to figure out the plot. For all the build-up and hype for this movie, I am sad to say it was not as good as it could have been.
In Tron: Legacy, Jeff Bridges plays Kevin Flynn, the creator of the video game Tron, who disappears into his own creation after developing unheard-of technological advances. Twenty years later his son, Sam Flynn (played by Garrett Hedlund) enters the universe of the game (referred to as "The Grid") after receiving a message from his father. Upon entering The Grid, Sam realizes something is wrong when he runs into a likeness of his father, CLU (for Codified Likeness Utility), who has become the ruthless, authoritarian leader of The Grid.
Sam has to compete in a series of matches that mimic the video game his father created before he is rescued by Quorra (Olivia Wilde) and brought to his father, who explains the rather exhaustive history of The Grid and CLU. It is discovered that CLU wishes to leave The Grid and enter the real world, along with an army that he has created from programmed players within the game. CLU also was responsible for the genocide of a race of sentient programs that were naturally created by The Grid.
The movie starts out poorly (hitting on all the father's-gone-so-son-has-to-take-over-the-giant-company-dad-left-behind cliches along with terrible one-liners during the opening action sequences) but manages to improve over time. By the time the third act rolls around and the conflict begins heading towards resolution, the movie picks up quite well, but not enough to rescue the rest of the movie.
It felt as if almost half the dialogue in the film was exposition, explaining different parts of various back-stories, all spread over several different scenes. I have not seen the original Tron so I am not sure how much the writers were trying to explain everything from the first movie and help the audience understand the nature of the computer program the characters are stuck in.
Also, releasing the film in 3-D was unnecessary. I saw it in 3-D but in this case 3-D did little to improve the movie. For those who think that 3-D makes everything better, how much better does 3-D really make anything? The Matrix (thematically similar to Tron: Legacy) is quite good in plain old 2-D. The action sequences in Tron: Legacy, which are quite entertaining, would still be impressive and fun without the need to view them with special, large (and probably previously-used) glasses.
As rich and as deep as the universe of The Grid is, the movie still falls short of its potential. It touches on intriguing notions such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality and the nature of reality itself but does not go far enough in developing them. Instead, just as the movie is getting good, it turns into a typical action flick. The good guys have to get to the exit portal and escape before the bad guys do in order to save the world.
Ultimately, Tron: Legacy is a poor man's The Matrix. The plot can be confusing at times (my father was not sure what was going on all the time) and it tries too much to fit the contours of an action movie. I would have liked to see Quorra and Sam become love interests but who knows what might happen if a sequel is made.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Friday, December 31, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
True Grit
Four Stars
The Coen Brothers have done it again. They have made another masterpiece, this time a straight western. This True Grit is not a remake of the classic John Wayne movie but rather an adaptation of the same 1968 novel. And the Coen Brothers manage to put their own unique touch on the story, helped by great acting, superb writing and cinematography.
In 1878, fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross (played brilliantly by Hailee Steinfeld) wished to avenge the death of her father, who died at the hands of a man named Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Mattie seeks help from U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) in tracking and capturing the fugitive Chaney. At the same time, Cogburn and Texas Ranger La Boeuf (Matt Damon) are on the trail of another outlaw named Ned Pepper (Barry Pepper), looking to split a reward on his capture as well as knowing that Chaney is among Pepper's men.
At first, Cogburn and La Boeuf are unsure what to make of young Mattie, but she proves herself to be a strong-minded and strong-willed person up to the challenge of tracking and hunting down her father's killer. Over the course of the movie, they encounter a number of ups and downs, including ambushes and kidnapping, that eventually culminate in a thrilling shoot-out.
One of the things that stands out in this movie is the acting. Everyone is at the top of their game, from Coen Brothers staples Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski) and Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men) to newcomer Hailee Steinfeld. Steinfeld shows how she is wise beyond her years in her first major film role by giving a very convincing performance that manages not to get overshadowed by all the big names surrounding her. Matt Damon also does a fine job, as he and Jeff Bridges both had the difficult task of balancing moments of comedy with moments of extreme seriousness.
Cinematography was another stand-out feature. Rather than just go with wide shot after wide shot to exploit the beautiful locations used throughout the movie, the Coen Brothers manage to no overdo it with sweeping visuals. But Coen Brothers are not unfamiliar with westerns, as No Country For Old Men incorporated several elements of the genre. Ultimately, the Coens are able to create a world that feels very genuine without all the cliche of a typical western landscape.
The writing is not to be overlooked as well. The Coen Brothers are well-known for their eclectic dialogue in their movies, and in True Grit it is once again top notch. One fine example of this is early on in the movie is a scene where Mattie Ross negotiates with a businessman over being reimbursed for her father's losses, including his horses and pieces of California gold. The back and forth banter, bargaining and haggling perfectly demonstrates the skillful writing of a well-polished script.
For those worried about the level violence or sex in the movie, do not be worried. There is none of the latter and brief moments of the former. Yes, people get shot and stabbed but there is very little blood. And this is because the movie is not about violence. It is about revenge, and the connection made between Mattie Ross and Rooster Cogburn. The Coen Brothers know to not let over-the-top violence get in the way of this great story.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
The Coen Brothers have done it again. They have made another masterpiece, this time a straight western. This True Grit is not a remake of the classic John Wayne movie but rather an adaptation of the same 1968 novel. And the Coen Brothers manage to put their own unique touch on the story, helped by great acting, superb writing and cinematography.
In 1878, fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross (played brilliantly by Hailee Steinfeld) wished to avenge the death of her father, who died at the hands of a man named Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Mattie seeks help from U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) in tracking and capturing the fugitive Chaney. At the same time, Cogburn and Texas Ranger La Boeuf (Matt Damon) are on the trail of another outlaw named Ned Pepper (Barry Pepper), looking to split a reward on his capture as well as knowing that Chaney is among Pepper's men.
At first, Cogburn and La Boeuf are unsure what to make of young Mattie, but she proves herself to be a strong-minded and strong-willed person up to the challenge of tracking and hunting down her father's killer. Over the course of the movie, they encounter a number of ups and downs, including ambushes and kidnapping, that eventually culminate in a thrilling shoot-out.
One of the things that stands out in this movie is the acting. Everyone is at the top of their game, from Coen Brothers staples Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski) and Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men) to newcomer Hailee Steinfeld. Steinfeld shows how she is wise beyond her years in her first major film role by giving a very convincing performance that manages not to get overshadowed by all the big names surrounding her. Matt Damon also does a fine job, as he and Jeff Bridges both had the difficult task of balancing moments of comedy with moments of extreme seriousness.
Cinematography was another stand-out feature. Rather than just go with wide shot after wide shot to exploit the beautiful locations used throughout the movie, the Coen Brothers manage to no overdo it with sweeping visuals. But Coen Brothers are not unfamiliar with westerns, as No Country For Old Men incorporated several elements of the genre. Ultimately, the Coens are able to create a world that feels very genuine without all the cliche of a typical western landscape.
The writing is not to be overlooked as well. The Coen Brothers are well-known for their eclectic dialogue in their movies, and in True Grit it is once again top notch. One fine example of this is early on in the movie is a scene where Mattie Ross negotiates with a businessman over being reimbursed for her father's losses, including his horses and pieces of California gold. The back and forth banter, bargaining and haggling perfectly demonstrates the skillful writing of a well-polished script.
For those worried about the level violence or sex in the movie, do not be worried. There is none of the latter and brief moments of the former. Yes, people get shot and stabbed but there is very little blood. And this is because the movie is not about violence. It is about revenge, and the connection made between Mattie Ross and Rooster Cogburn. The Coen Brothers know to not let over-the-top violence get in the way of this great story.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Monday, December 20, 2010
Happy Holidays You Bastards
*Guitar solo from Stairway To Heaven*
Well it’s that time of year again, the time of year when you’re getting a bunch of Christmas cards from people you probably haven’t seen in years. Most of the cards probably have pictures of the people doing something they think is really impressive. Like rock climbing or standing in front of some famous monument. Or a picture from their trip to Europe. You ever notice that?
There’s probably a letter too, detailing everything they’ve done for the past year. It’s also probably written in third person. Like this one. Don’t you thing that’s a little pretentious? These people have done things they think are so impressive that they think telling it first person drags down the accomplishment. Well I got news for you, Jane Eyre was written in first person and it’s supposed to be a really good book. It actually sucks, but that’s not the point.
Anyway, they probably begin with some quote they think is profound at the top of the letter. HEY, JIMMY PAGE IS A GOD! DON’T YOU CRITICIZE ME! Then they begin by telling you that another year has gone by and their family has accomplished a lot. That usually takes a paragraph or two. People can be so predictable.
Then they begin to list individual “achievements.” As you read on, you begin to realize the traditional Christmas letter is nothing more than a giant way to show off. It’s usually parents bragging about their kids, right? That’s right, Christmas letters are nothing more than giant pissing contests between families. And every family is trying stand out the most.
“Timmy has started kindergarten!” “Johnny has started playing piano!” “Jane won an award for playing violin!” “Linda started college!” Great, just great. That’s exactly what I wanted to know people I probably haven’t met and never will. And have you noticed it’s always about school or musical instruments?
Following this, they usually end with some lame attempt at a conclusion, probably hoping to persuade you not to just throw away the letter you get next year without even opening it. Don’t expect to find one here. I won’t get suckered into it.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention some things. John has continued to kick ass at his job. What is his job? Well if you don’t remember what is from previous letters, you probably don’t care. What’s one impressive thing he’s done? Either mastering Facebook or facilitating the move from a townhouse to an apartment seamlessly, take your pick. (Oh yeah, I just snuck two accomplishments in there! Booyah!)
Maggie’s interests include bungee jumping, extreme underwater basket weaving, fighting the Libyan terrorists from Back to the Future and punching Great White Sharks on the nose. She’s also watched a bunch of movies that you’ll just skip over if they’re listed. What’s one impressive thing she’s done? Admit she likes the film Leap Year. Check out the trailer on Youtube. Seriously. You can guess the entire plot from a 30 second preview. It takes courage to admit you like those kinds of movies.
And Matt? Well he’s a sophomore in college at Indiana University. He plays a little bit of guitar and wait a minute! I see what’s going on here! This guy’s doing exactly what he complained about! What a hypocrite! But in all seriousness, ain’t he a great comedy writer?
Friday, December 17, 2010
A Winter Story
And so it was that our hero had finished his finals. He headed down the hall and down the stair towards the exit, pausing only to pull out his iPod and select some music before heading out into the cold, dark night that lay before him. As he took his first few steps out into that night, he noticed it was snowing; this brought a smile to our valiant protagonist's face.
On he walked, barely noticing the cold air around him. He had walked through it before, and was used to the way it felt on his face. He was wearing a jacket, something he did not normally do. He usually finds them to rather bulky and heavy, and often chose to wear a hoodie with a sweater underneath. But that was not to be on this particular occasion. Our brave hero chose to break with tradition for a noble and time-honored reason: pure laziness.
As he listened to the cacophony of noise that poured out of the earbuds and felt the wind on face, the snow lightly falling on his glorious orange hair, he recalled the walk he took a little over a week ago. It was the first major snow that our hero's locale had seen since the previous winter. And he decided to take advantage of it and go on a walk.
You see, our protagonist quite enjoys the winter months. It might be a Chicago thing, it may be a Midwest thing, or perhaps it is that our hero is simply insane. But no matter. The cold does not bother him, though he is aware of its presence, particularly in his fingers and ears. He was raised on the cold, knows how it works. He can tell the difference between a biting cold and a friendly, inviting one. On that particular night our young hero sensed the latter, and walked outside, unsure of what lay in store for him.
The first thing our protagonist notices upon entering the snowy landscape that lay before him was the peace and calm that seemed to enshroud everything. The only noise our dear friend registers is the snow as it piles softly on the ground. This is a sound our hero has often overlooked, and until that moment had not realized how close it resembled the sound of a light rain. Little things such as these can be easily overlooked if one is not careful.
After taking a few seconds to absorb the serenity of the moment, he sets off. Where is he headed? Even he does not know, preferring to be led wherever the winter takes him. He is careful not to walk too fast; he does not want to miss a single moment as he travels along his uncharted journey. He pauses often, looking up at the snow as it falls. It is especially beautiful when viewed against a lamppost or a street light.
What is so intriguing about snow at night? It is hard for our hero to describe. Magical might come close, but he would hate to limit the experience down to a single word. There is a tremendous sense of escape that this experience has for him. Outside there are no worries, no lingering problems. Those remained inside. Out in that snowy night our protagonist is free from all his troubles.
The snow crunches under his feet as he walks along a path, with his footsteps seemingly to be the first to grace that path. But who can be sure? Perhaps another soul wandered along, and perhaps the gently falling snow covered up their prints. Such is the mystical nature of the snow our hero walks on. Soon another soul will come along that same path and find no trace of our hero's prints. Will this person also believe that they are the first to navigate this path?
His steps are uneven, his arms are covered with snow and his fingers are quite cold. But his journey is far from over. He has encountered other signs of life such as a particular pine tree that sticks out in his memory. As he came upon the tree he could see a fine level of snow having settled on the dark green bristles that made up the branches. For some reason this gave our hero great joy. Why? He cannot say.
He also notices rabbit tracks in the freshly fallen snow, another sign of life on his otherwise solitary walk. The tracks appeared as three dots: two side-by-side about two inches apart with a third one centered about three inches to four inches behind the first two, forming a backwards triangle with its points. Our brave protagonist notices these track wherever he goes, observing how the tracks sometimes were made in a zig-zag motion, and another time observing that a rabbit chose to take a ramp rather than stairs.
At one point on his walk, our intrepid explorer comes across one of the makers of those tracks. Our hero is in a woody area, surrounded by trees that went into hibernation long ago. As he slowly travels along the trail, he notices movement to his left. It is a small brown rabbit, who comes to a stop and takes a good look at our friend. The rabbit remains perfectly still, measuring up the tall creature in front of it.
Suddenly, a staring contest is born, and a battle of wills begins. The rabbit looks at the tall creature with its small piercing eyes, still as a statue. Likewise, the tall creature stares back at the rabbit, waiting for it to flinch or show signs of fatigue. Sadly, our hero wind up defeated, and moved on. All is not lost, however, because there is still much for him to see.
Our daring hero moves on, wandering through the woods and past buildings, eventually becoming slightly lost. But no worries. He soon discovers the right path and all is well again. He continues on through the snow, having been walking for over an hour. Is he getting cold? Perhaps a little bit, but he can endure it for a while still. He likes to think he is pretty tough when it comes to combating the elements.
Next on the agenda for him is to begin to head back, but not before taking a slight detour. Call it the scenic route back to his humble abode. He comes across the art building, which houses a structure next to it that is quite unique. Standing at least fifty feet tall is a thin tower that contains dozens of lights, stretching vertically from the top to the bottom. These lights, capable of changing color, shine against the wall of the art building.
The lights constantly shift in color, from a solid strip of red to green to blue to a purple-violet and eventually a rainbow. On their own, the lights are a rather spectacular sight to take in at night. In the snow, the sight is even more breathtaking. The tower illuminates all the falling snow that crosses the paths of the lights it holds within, coloring each snowflake with whatever color happens to hit it.
Our hero stares at this beautiful scene for some time, trying to retain every last bit of wonder it holds. Scenes like this are why our hero has a hard time describing why he likes winter so much. How can our hero put into words an experience so unique it cannot be expressed through any known means? He finds that words are insufficient; they do not do his feelings justice. But he will try to anyway, later on.
After a few minutes our protagonist discovers he is not alone. Coming up to him from across the street is another wandering soul. Introductions are made, names are given and a handshake is shared. Our astute hero quickly comes to the realization that his new friend is rather intoxicated, something the drunk later admits himself. A discussion is held, dominated by the quasi-philosopher who, in his drunken, ineffable wisdom, is transfixed by all the countless forces that led the two of us to meet at this exact spot at this moment in time.
A group of women approach the light tower, determined to take pictures of the scene previously described. Our friend, the drunk philosopher, turns his attention to the fairer sex in an effort to the determine all the forces that led them to that exact spot at that moment in time. Our sly hero took this moment to make his exit and began heading back to the bed that was waiting for him.
The road back, though a short one, was rife with adventure. Snowballs were heaved at our defenseless hero in a surprise attack from some passersby. Do not worry, dear reader, for our brave hero managed to survive the ambush and dodge the onslaught of snowballs that came his way. Moving on, he walked the path he had worn out the last few years, the one back to his home. And as he was walking, he felt that his night was complete.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
On he walked, barely noticing the cold air around him. He had walked through it before, and was used to the way it felt on his face. He was wearing a jacket, something he did not normally do. He usually finds them to rather bulky and heavy, and often chose to wear a hoodie with a sweater underneath. But that was not to be on this particular occasion. Our brave hero chose to break with tradition for a noble and time-honored reason: pure laziness.
As he listened to the cacophony of noise that poured out of the earbuds and felt the wind on face, the snow lightly falling on his glorious orange hair, he recalled the walk he took a little over a week ago. It was the first major snow that our hero's locale had seen since the previous winter. And he decided to take advantage of it and go on a walk.
You see, our protagonist quite enjoys the winter months. It might be a Chicago thing, it may be a Midwest thing, or perhaps it is that our hero is simply insane. But no matter. The cold does not bother him, though he is aware of its presence, particularly in his fingers and ears. He was raised on the cold, knows how it works. He can tell the difference between a biting cold and a friendly, inviting one. On that particular night our young hero sensed the latter, and walked outside, unsure of what lay in store for him.
The first thing our protagonist notices upon entering the snowy landscape that lay before him was the peace and calm that seemed to enshroud everything. The only noise our dear friend registers is the snow as it piles softly on the ground. This is a sound our hero has often overlooked, and until that moment had not realized how close it resembled the sound of a light rain. Little things such as these can be easily overlooked if one is not careful.
After taking a few seconds to absorb the serenity of the moment, he sets off. Where is he headed? Even he does not know, preferring to be led wherever the winter takes him. He is careful not to walk too fast; he does not want to miss a single moment as he travels along his uncharted journey. He pauses often, looking up at the snow as it falls. It is especially beautiful when viewed against a lamppost or a street light.
What is so intriguing about snow at night? It is hard for our hero to describe. Magical might come close, but he would hate to limit the experience down to a single word. There is a tremendous sense of escape that this experience has for him. Outside there are no worries, no lingering problems. Those remained inside. Out in that snowy night our protagonist is free from all his troubles.
The snow crunches under his feet as he walks along a path, with his footsteps seemingly to be the first to grace that path. But who can be sure? Perhaps another soul wandered along, and perhaps the gently falling snow covered up their prints. Such is the mystical nature of the snow our hero walks on. Soon another soul will come along that same path and find no trace of our hero's prints. Will this person also believe that they are the first to navigate this path?
His steps are uneven, his arms are covered with snow and his fingers are quite cold. But his journey is far from over. He has encountered other signs of life such as a particular pine tree that sticks out in his memory. As he came upon the tree he could see a fine level of snow having settled on the dark green bristles that made up the branches. For some reason this gave our hero great joy. Why? He cannot say.
He also notices rabbit tracks in the freshly fallen snow, another sign of life on his otherwise solitary walk. The tracks appeared as three dots: two side-by-side about two inches apart with a third one centered about three inches to four inches behind the first two, forming a backwards triangle with its points. Our brave protagonist notices these track wherever he goes, observing how the tracks sometimes were made in a zig-zag motion, and another time observing that a rabbit chose to take a ramp rather than stairs.
At one point on his walk, our intrepid explorer comes across one of the makers of those tracks. Our hero is in a woody area, surrounded by trees that went into hibernation long ago. As he slowly travels along the trail, he notices movement to his left. It is a small brown rabbit, who comes to a stop and takes a good look at our friend. The rabbit remains perfectly still, measuring up the tall creature in front of it.
Suddenly, a staring contest is born, and a battle of wills begins. The rabbit looks at the tall creature with its small piercing eyes, still as a statue. Likewise, the tall creature stares back at the rabbit, waiting for it to flinch or show signs of fatigue. Sadly, our hero wind up defeated, and moved on. All is not lost, however, because there is still much for him to see.
Our daring hero moves on, wandering through the woods and past buildings, eventually becoming slightly lost. But no worries. He soon discovers the right path and all is well again. He continues on through the snow, having been walking for over an hour. Is he getting cold? Perhaps a little bit, but he can endure it for a while still. He likes to think he is pretty tough when it comes to combating the elements.
Next on the agenda for him is to begin to head back, but not before taking a slight detour. Call it the scenic route back to his humble abode. He comes across the art building, which houses a structure next to it that is quite unique. Standing at least fifty feet tall is a thin tower that contains dozens of lights, stretching vertically from the top to the bottom. These lights, capable of changing color, shine against the wall of the art building.
The lights constantly shift in color, from a solid strip of red to green to blue to a purple-violet and eventually a rainbow. On their own, the lights are a rather spectacular sight to take in at night. In the snow, the sight is even more breathtaking. The tower illuminates all the falling snow that crosses the paths of the lights it holds within, coloring each snowflake with whatever color happens to hit it.
Our hero stares at this beautiful scene for some time, trying to retain every last bit of wonder it holds. Scenes like this are why our hero has a hard time describing why he likes winter so much. How can our hero put into words an experience so unique it cannot be expressed through any known means? He finds that words are insufficient; they do not do his feelings justice. But he will try to anyway, later on.
After a few minutes our protagonist discovers he is not alone. Coming up to him from across the street is another wandering soul. Introductions are made, names are given and a handshake is shared. Our astute hero quickly comes to the realization that his new friend is rather intoxicated, something the drunk later admits himself. A discussion is held, dominated by the quasi-philosopher who, in his drunken, ineffable wisdom, is transfixed by all the countless forces that led the two of us to meet at this exact spot at this moment in time.
A group of women approach the light tower, determined to take pictures of the scene previously described. Our friend, the drunk philosopher, turns his attention to the fairer sex in an effort to the determine all the forces that led them to that exact spot at that moment in time. Our sly hero took this moment to make his exit and began heading back to the bed that was waiting for him.
The road back, though a short one, was rife with adventure. Snowballs were heaved at our defenseless hero in a surprise attack from some passersby. Do not worry, dear reader, for our brave hero managed to survive the ambush and dodge the onslaught of snowballs that came his way. Moving on, he walked the path he had worn out the last few years, the one back to his home. And as he was walking, he felt that his night was complete.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Friday, December 10, 2010
Just A Normal Program At Read
Previously, I posted a link to a slide show project I made for the journalism class I took this semester. Well, I had another project assigned to me after the slide show, and this time it was a video project. You can watch my video "Just A Normal Program At Read" here:
http://journalism.indiana.edu/studentwork/kelly_j210_fall2010/?p=3496
Enjoy.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
http://journalism.indiana.edu/studentwork/kelly_j210_fall2010/?p=3496
Enjoy.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Obama And Tax Cuts
"We are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America."
Some people need to be reminded of that quote, given what has happened in the last few days. Recently, President Barack Obama reached a compromise with Republicans to temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of jobless Americans. There has been a lot of discussion and debate over this move and there has been a particular uproar amongst liberals. They feel Obama is caving to Republicans and that this is yet another example of him failing to stand strong on liberal issues.
I can understand their disliking the decision to extend the Bush tax cuts. I am of the belief that trickle-down economics does not work well and I also think that the rich can afford to pay slightly higher taxes. And, from what I understand (my knowledge of economics is rather limited), the Bush tax cuts are not a great help to the national economy because they add to the deficit without paying for themselves. I can understand the discontent towards extending them, even temporarily.
But I do not understand the uproar with which liberals have reacted to the move. If the move has angered or infuriated you, take a look at that quote at the top of this post. Remember when he said that? Remember the swell of pride you felt as he repeated them during his acceptance speech on election night two years ago? You probably did not feel the same swell of pride when you read about that deal Obama made. Why?
President Obama did exactly what that quote personifies, governing not to one side, but to the middle, and yet many liberals cannot help but overreact. I support the move even though I disagree with the decision to extend the Bush tax cuts because Obama is trying to appease both sides, as he should. Is it perfect? Of course not but nowadays it is very hard find any major policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. That is why I applaud the move, because Obama is making that quote at the top come to life.
I have written before about my problems with the "professional left" that Press Secretary Robert Gibbs once brought up, and I feel that this is another case of the professional left doing more harm that good. To borrow the old saying, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. By overlooking the bipartisan nature of the agreement President Obama struck up, the professional left needs to learn that Obama is not someone who bows to their every wish.
The professional left also needs to learn that compromising with Republicans does not make President Obama a weak authority. Go ahead and try to name any piece of legislation that has been had major bipartisan support. Kind of hard to do, isn't it? Obama has had to fight an obstructionist Republican Party since taking office, and this agreement shows two things: first, a willingness to reach across the isle, and second, making sacrifices to make sure things get done.
Senate Republicans promised to combat any and all legislation that came their way until something was done about the Bush tax cuts. President Obama moved forward to ensure that important things like extending unemployment benefits get done. Now tell me, how is that so wrong? I understand that this presidency has not been quite what liberals envisioned after election night 2008, but it has been better than what they have made it out to be. I hope liberals start to realize that, and remember President Obama is not working for them alone, but for everyone, even the tens of millions that voted against him in the election.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Some people need to be reminded of that quote, given what has happened in the last few days. Recently, President Barack Obama reached a compromise with Republicans to temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of jobless Americans. There has been a lot of discussion and debate over this move and there has been a particular uproar amongst liberals. They feel Obama is caving to Republicans and that this is yet another example of him failing to stand strong on liberal issues.
I can understand their disliking the decision to extend the Bush tax cuts. I am of the belief that trickle-down economics does not work well and I also think that the rich can afford to pay slightly higher taxes. And, from what I understand (my knowledge of economics is rather limited), the Bush tax cuts are not a great help to the national economy because they add to the deficit without paying for themselves. I can understand the discontent towards extending them, even temporarily.
But I do not understand the uproar with which liberals have reacted to the move. If the move has angered or infuriated you, take a look at that quote at the top of this post. Remember when he said that? Remember the swell of pride you felt as he repeated them during his acceptance speech on election night two years ago? You probably did not feel the same swell of pride when you read about that deal Obama made. Why?
President Obama did exactly what that quote personifies, governing not to one side, but to the middle, and yet many liberals cannot help but overreact. I support the move even though I disagree with the decision to extend the Bush tax cuts because Obama is trying to appease both sides, as he should. Is it perfect? Of course not but nowadays it is very hard find any major policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. That is why I applaud the move, because Obama is making that quote at the top come to life.
I have written before about my problems with the "professional left" that Press Secretary Robert Gibbs once brought up, and I feel that this is another case of the professional left doing more harm that good. To borrow the old saying, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. By overlooking the bipartisan nature of the agreement President Obama struck up, the professional left needs to learn that Obama is not someone who bows to their every wish.
The professional left also needs to learn that compromising with Republicans does not make President Obama a weak authority. Go ahead and try to name any piece of legislation that has been had major bipartisan support. Kind of hard to do, isn't it? Obama has had to fight an obstructionist Republican Party since taking office, and this agreement shows two things: first, a willingness to reach across the isle, and second, making sacrifices to make sure things get done.
Senate Republicans promised to combat any and all legislation that came their way until something was done about the Bush tax cuts. President Obama moved forward to ensure that important things like extending unemployment benefits get done. Now tell me, how is that so wrong? I understand that this presidency has not been quite what liberals envisioned after election night 2008, but it has been better than what they have made it out to be. I hope liberals start to realize that, and remember President Obama is not working for them alone, but for everyone, even the tens of millions that voted against him in the election.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Friday, December 3, 2010
Remembering Ron Santo
It is hard to put into words what the loss of Ron Santo is like. For Cubs fans, it is like losing a family member. For baseball fans, it is like losing a legend. For the Hall of Fame, it is like losing a future member. I would imagine that his death comes as a shock to all Cubs fans, given that he always sounded so full of life and energy when he called games. His emphatic "yes!" when a Cub hits a home run or "alright!" when something actually does go right for a change go along with his famous sighs and groans of "oh no" when something goes wrong gave listeners the sense that he would keep on kicking for years to come.
As most fans were well aware, he suffered from type one diabetes and had a history of health problems. Back during the 1960s when there was no way to measure blood sugar levels on one's own, the only way he could battle the disease was with candy bars and judging how he felt. And he had to keep it hidden, afraid he would be forced to retire. As great as he performed on the field, his contributions off the field were arguably much more valuable. He helped raise millions of dollars for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. You can donate to JDRF here: https://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=100903.
I never saw Ron Santo play; his playing career was before my time. I discovered him through listening to Cubs games on the radio as I grew up. He was always a harbinger of emotions, not afraid completely pour his heart out over the air. You could always tell how the Cubs were doing based solely on the sound of his voice: if he was in a bad mood you knew the Cubs were playing poorly and if he was in a good mood you knew all was well, even without knowing the score.
You could make out the love and adoration he had for this team simply from the sound of his voice. I always loved the way he carried his emotions on his sleeve, the same way I do as a Cubs fan. He screamed for joy when I did, he cried out in disgust when I did and he pulled for the Cubs as hard as I did. And now that he is gone, the two of us will no longer cheer in unison.
I do not feel like entering to the Hall of Fame debate here because that is not important right now. And while I believe wholeheartedly that he belongs in Cooperstown, this is a period of mourning and remembrance, not bickering. Let us all just spend this time remembering a great, great Cub.
As most fans were well aware, he suffered from type one diabetes and had a history of health problems. Back during the 1960s when there was no way to measure blood sugar levels on one's own, the only way he could battle the disease was with candy bars and judging how he felt. And he had to keep it hidden, afraid he would be forced to retire. As great as he performed on the field, his contributions off the field were arguably much more valuable. He helped raise millions of dollars for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. You can donate to JDRF here: https://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=100903.
I never saw Ron Santo play; his playing career was before my time. I discovered him through listening to Cubs games on the radio as I grew up. He was always a harbinger of emotions, not afraid completely pour his heart out over the air. You could always tell how the Cubs were doing based solely on the sound of his voice: if he was in a bad mood you knew the Cubs were playing poorly and if he was in a good mood you knew all was well, even without knowing the score.
You could make out the love and adoration he had for this team simply from the sound of his voice. I always loved the way he carried his emotions on his sleeve, the same way I do as a Cubs fan. He screamed for joy when I did, he cried out in disgust when I did and he pulled for the Cubs as hard as I did. And now that he is gone, the two of us will no longer cheer in unison.
I do not feel like entering to the Hall of Fame debate here because that is not important right now. And while I believe wholeheartedly that he belongs in Cooperstown, this is a period of mourning and remembrance, not bickering. Let us all just spend this time remembering a great, great Cub.
Ronald Edward Santo
1940-2010
Rest In Peace
Monday, November 29, 2010
Two Reviews
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part One
Four Stars
In the penultimate film of one of the most successful movie franchises in history, the viewer is treated to a spectacular feast. There are delightful action sequences, moving visuals, intelligent writing and strong acting performances. But what really sets it apart from the previous Harry Potter films is the decision to split the final book into two parts.
The number one limitation for the last few Harry Potter films was that the story was constrained by having to encapsulate everything into two-and-a-half hours. There were periods when sequences felt rushed and the story felt as if it were flying by, as if one were skimming the pages and chapters of the books rather than reading thoroughly. Entire characters and major sequences were cut from the films, and because of this the previous couple films have lacked the completeness that this one has.
By being able to splice the seventh book into two movies, the first part could adhere to a better narrative structure that did not feel rushed. Pacing is one of the key components of a movie, and the filmmakers did not waste the opportunity given to them in this case. No sequence feels forced, rushed or dragged out. Another challenge that the filmmakers conquered was the question of where to end the movie. Without wanting to spoil anything, all I will say is that not only does the movie end at a good point, it sets up a good starting point for Part Two.
What really pulls this movie together are the themes of friendship and self-sacrifice. There is an early scene where Ron confronts Harry, who is trying to sneak off after hearing about the death of Mad-Eye. This one scene encapsulates what the movie is about, and it does not try to win you over with snazzy visuals or the allure of being in 3D. It relies simply on the heartfelt idea of friendship, and that is nice to see in an age of movies like Transformers.
* * *
The Human Centipede: First Sequence
Negative Infinity-Bajillion Stars
Yes, I actually watched this movie. Why did I decide to pair it with Harry Potter? Because I can do what I want. In case you do not know what this movie is about, a mad German scientist has the brilliant idea of connecting three people together, mouth to butt to mouth to butt. You read that correctly. The dude connects three people together in the worst possible way.
The beginning is quite terrible: two American girls get lost on their way to a party and then do not stop complaining for about 10 minutes. At that point I could not care less what happened to them, even though I knew what they were in for. One of the keys of a good horror movie is a hero or heroine that the audience can root for. This movie definitely missed.
Then they get run into the creepy doctor's house and get drugged. Eventually he connects the two women to a stranger while a pair of cops prove to be terrible detectives. The rest of the movie is fairly boring and could not wait for it to end. I spent an hour-and-a-half of my life watching that movie. I since regret that decision.
Nor was this movie particularly scary. There was an unimpressive surgery scene but the movie seemed less to try and scare people and more to try and gross them out. Scat is not scary. It is just disgusting. But apparently the filmmaker disagrees, because he is going ahead and developing a sequel. Yes, they are making a sequel. Somehow.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Four Stars
In the penultimate film of one of the most successful movie franchises in history, the viewer is treated to a spectacular feast. There are delightful action sequences, moving visuals, intelligent writing and strong acting performances. But what really sets it apart from the previous Harry Potter films is the decision to split the final book into two parts.
The number one limitation for the last few Harry Potter films was that the story was constrained by having to encapsulate everything into two-and-a-half hours. There were periods when sequences felt rushed and the story felt as if it were flying by, as if one were skimming the pages and chapters of the books rather than reading thoroughly. Entire characters and major sequences were cut from the films, and because of this the previous couple films have lacked the completeness that this one has.
By being able to splice the seventh book into two movies, the first part could adhere to a better narrative structure that did not feel rushed. Pacing is one of the key components of a movie, and the filmmakers did not waste the opportunity given to them in this case. No sequence feels forced, rushed or dragged out. Another challenge that the filmmakers conquered was the question of where to end the movie. Without wanting to spoil anything, all I will say is that not only does the movie end at a good point, it sets up a good starting point for Part Two.
What really pulls this movie together are the themes of friendship and self-sacrifice. There is an early scene where Ron confronts Harry, who is trying to sneak off after hearing about the death of Mad-Eye. This one scene encapsulates what the movie is about, and it does not try to win you over with snazzy visuals or the allure of being in 3D. It relies simply on the heartfelt idea of friendship, and that is nice to see in an age of movies like Transformers.
* * *
The Human Centipede: First Sequence
Negative Infinity-Bajillion Stars
Yes, I actually watched this movie. Why did I decide to pair it with Harry Potter? Because I can do what I want. In case you do not know what this movie is about, a mad German scientist has the brilliant idea of connecting three people together, mouth to butt to mouth to butt. You read that correctly. The dude connects three people together in the worst possible way.
The beginning is quite terrible: two American girls get lost on their way to a party and then do not stop complaining for about 10 minutes. At that point I could not care less what happened to them, even though I knew what they were in for. One of the keys of a good horror movie is a hero or heroine that the audience can root for. This movie definitely missed.
Then they get run into the creepy doctor's house and get drugged. Eventually he connects the two women to a stranger while a pair of cops prove to be terrible detectives. The rest of the movie is fairly boring and could not wait for it to end. I spent an hour-and-a-half of my life watching that movie. I since regret that decision.
Nor was this movie particularly scary. There was an unimpressive surgery scene but the movie seemed less to try and scare people and more to try and gross them out. Scat is not scary. It is just disgusting. But apparently the filmmaker disagrees, because he is going ahead and developing a sequel. Yes, they are making a sequel. Somehow.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Monday, November 22, 2010
A Trip To The Creation Museum
When you first come up to the gates of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, one of the first things you notice is a pair of dinosaur statues positioned on each side of the gate. When you first walk into the Creation Museum, one of the first things you see is a giant hanging model of a dinosaur hanging in the air, posing as if in mid flight. As you being to walk through the exhibits, something begins to stick out at you: these people like dinosaurs. They really like dinosaurs. The gift shop is filled with dinosaur toys and merchandise. There are even animatronic dinosaurs, capable of moving around and making noises.
Yet for all this focus on dinosaurs, they cannot manage to keep their own deluded facts straight about these creatures. One graphic states that dinosaurs were created on the sixth day, but a video presentation suggests they came into being over the course of the fourth and fifth days when God created Earth. They also stated that there were only about 50 species of dinosaurs, and thus it was easy to fit them all on Noah's Ark. While the exact number of species is not known, paleontologists have found hundreds of species of dinosaurs, with many more likely to be discovered. But it is rather pointless to argue about facts with these people, this being a small sampling of their information.
The real reason for having such a strong focus on dinosaurs is obvious: it is designed especially with kids in mind. Dinosaurs, being something that almost all kids are fascinated in at one point or another during their youth, are a prime way for the people behind this museum to connect with children. I loved dinosaurs as a kid, and were I still young and easily impressionable, I might be swayed by all the focus put on these prehistoric beasts.
Another thing you notice as you walk through the museum and glance at the various exhibits is how these people seem to have an answer for everything. Why was incest ok back during the time of Adam and Eve but not ok now? They have an answer for that. How have places like the Grand Canyon been formed in only a few thousand years? They have an answer for that. How is carbon dating ineffective? They have an answer for that too.
But how do they get these answers? By ignoring “human reason” and quoting bible passages. It's hard to find a graphic or display that does not have biblical verses somewhere on it. They selectively choose what to answer and what not to as well. Nowhere could I find anything about such things as cavemen or genetics (there was an exhibit about evolution and natural selection, but nothing on DNA and its implications). My guess would be that there's not enough of God’s word to help explain why there are human remains more than 6,000 years old or how there was conclusive evidence to link species together (they did have their own genealogical trees, but it lacked an argument fortified with DNA evidence, and instead was tied together through scripture).
But ironically, the biggest thing I am going to take away from the trip was something that reinforced my atheism. I watched a planetarium-like show the museum put on, and rather than convincing me of the glory of God and creation, it did the opposite. I felt more secure in my atheism, and gained a new perspective about religion and the universe that I did not have before.
The show talked about how small the Earth was compared the rest of the known universe, and it mentioned just how far away our planet is from other stars, planets and galaxies. The program made mention of star clusters, the sizes of different stars and the number of stars and galaxies that we know to exist. Thinking about the universe on a cosmic scale moved me, and I began to develop a new viewpoint about our universe and religion here on Earth.
The first major thought that struck me as I watched was how Earth-centric religion is. When I think about how minute and insignificant our planet is relative to the massive size of the cosmos, I have to question how conceivable it is that God made the entire, ever-expanding universe only for us. I find that view rather selfish, that God chose this planet over all others, that we somehow won a lottery whose odds were infinity to one.
I do understand that, when people were first trying to explain what they were seeing up in the sky, they had no idea of the boundless nature of what was up there. The bible explains space via one little verse in Genesis (1:16) but it seems to me that the vastness of the universe deserves more respect and acknowledgment than five words.
The second major thought that struck me was that there is nothing in the bible about what is up there. Beyond the mention of stars and astrological concepts of the time, there is nothing about what we are supposed to make of it. Now, in an age where we are capable of space flight, there is nothing in the Bible about how to approach the new information we have concerning our universe and the possibilities that lay before us when it comes to space travel and exploration.
When I look at my place in existence in relation to the universe, I get the sense that I am just a speck on a grain of sand that makes up an endless beach. And I am ok with that. To assume we have some greater or higher purpose than merely to exist at all is a rather selfish view. I think some people cannot come to terms with that concept, that we are insignificant. I still feel that I am a part of something, as small as that part is, that I have left a footprint on that beach. I feel that my existence alone has contributed and fulfilled something, and that is good enough for me.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Sarah Palin Has A New Book
Sarah Palin has "written" a new book, America By Heart. It is scheduled to be released November 23rd, but there have already been excerpts leaked (which you can find here: http://gawker.com/5692353/sarah-palins-new-book-leaked-excerpts UPDATE: gawker has taken the page down). Having read through these excerpts, there are several things that caught my eye as red flags that I feel I should address (like any responsible random blogger would).
Where to begin? How about the dedication (to her son Trig), which includes a quote from Thomas Paine. Palin labels Thomas Paine as a "founding father," obviously trying to play with the Tea Party sentiment of restoring America back to the way the founders intended it. Paine is an interesting choice, given that he despised Christianity and has been considered by some to be a socialist. Looks like that Sarah Palin is pallin' around with radicals.
The first line of the introduction is Palin asking the question "do you love your freedom?" at a Tea Party rally. As if anyone would answer "no, of course not! I hate my freedom. In fact I am going to move to North Korea! That is where I want to be!" Can we please get over the ridiculous idea that if you are not a gun-toting, bible-thumping, tax-hating conservative you must hate freedom? Or that you are un-American? I understand there are arguments about specific freedoms that may or may not be guaranteed in the Constitution but that question implies that it is referring to the idea freedom as a whole, not just particular, unresolved freedoms. Yes, Palin admits that the question is rhetorical, but the implication is still there (and some people take it seriously).
She then goes on to talk about and describe the various signs that members of the rally carry with them. She mentions a few of her favorites, and the focuses on attacking the signs of protesters. Unlike the hand-painted signs that had "humor, color and variety" the protesters' signs were uniform and professionally printed, which is apparently bad (professionally done = spending money = stimulating the economy = very very bad). What is so wrong about promoting a contrarian point of view? Palin also seems to have forgotten about all the anti-Obama signs comparing him to Hitler, Stalin and/or Mao.
In another excerpt, she goes on a weird rant about American Idol. You read that correctly. American Idol. Not only did she miss the fact that the point of the show (like all television) is to entertain, but she admitted her favorite judge is Simon! But back to the former. Palin does not seem to understand that American Idol is not about the competitors who go on the show and willingly embarrass themselves, but the viewing audience.
I watch the first few audition episodes of American Idol because it is entertaining. There is a reason why the producers show some of the worst singers and not just the best voices at this stage. By the time it becomes an actual competition, I tune out and let people who like heavily-overplayed pop music watch and vote week after week. That is how American Idol works.
And then somehow Palin turns it into a metaphor for America:
"Unfortunately, Cowell is almost alone in his willingness to tell hard truths. Instead, a growing chorus of voices is trying to convince our kids that hard work isn't necessary anymore, that they're entitled to a lengthening list of benefits paid for by others, and that they don't have to accept the consequences of their actions when those consequences are bad. Those voices seem to think that the purpose of government -- the purpose of America -- isn't to promise equal opportunity but to produce equal outcomes."
But it is ok for Bristol Palin to be on Dancing With The Stars, which is an "uplifting, family-oriented show." So family-oriented, in fact, that Bristol Palin made a promise to dress more modestly than other contestants (which she later broke by making another promise to dress "sexy" for the show). How exactly is there any difference between American Idol and Dancing With The Stars?
It seems like half of the book is devoted entirely to paint Bristol Palin in a positive light. Yes, I understand Sarah Palin is a proud mother, but to say she was overly-positive is an understatement. Bristol works full time, Bristol goes to college, Bristol is a devoted mother, Bristol is a role model, Bristol faced the music, Bristol more than paid the price, Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, Bristol. How did Sarah Palin describe her daughter's pregnancy?
"Her adolescence had been prematurely halted and, in most unfortunate circumstances, she was going to have a baby,"
That is certainly one way of putting it. And then Sarah Palin goes the "do as I say, not as I do" route with her daughter.
"She has been accused of being a hypocrite. But to those critics I say this: Which is the more courageous course for a young, single mother: to sit down and shut up and avoid the critics, or to speak out in a painfully honest way about how tough single parenting is? I'm biased, of course, but given a choice of role models between Bristol and Murphy Brown, I choose Bristol."
Moving on, the last excerpts are Palin going on about how abortion is wrong, pro-choice people are hurting America, "new feminism" (her emphasis, not mine) and how God knew what he was doing when she found out Trig would be born with Down Syndrome. I would say that these excerpts are enough for me, and I will not waste my money on her new book if these few pages are any indication of what else is in store.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Where to begin? How about the dedication (to her son Trig), which includes a quote from Thomas Paine. Palin labels Thomas Paine as a "founding father," obviously trying to play with the Tea Party sentiment of restoring America back to the way the founders intended it. Paine is an interesting choice, given that he despised Christianity and has been considered by some to be a socialist. Looks like that Sarah Palin is pallin' around with radicals.
The first line of the introduction is Palin asking the question "do you love your freedom?" at a Tea Party rally. As if anyone would answer "no, of course not! I hate my freedom. In fact I am going to move to North Korea! That is where I want to be!" Can we please get over the ridiculous idea that if you are not a gun-toting, bible-thumping, tax-hating conservative you must hate freedom? Or that you are un-American? I understand there are arguments about specific freedoms that may or may not be guaranteed in the Constitution but that question implies that it is referring to the idea freedom as a whole, not just particular, unresolved freedoms. Yes, Palin admits that the question is rhetorical, but the implication is still there (and some people take it seriously).
She then goes on to talk about and describe the various signs that members of the rally carry with them. She mentions a few of her favorites, and the focuses on attacking the signs of protesters. Unlike the hand-painted signs that had "humor, color and variety" the protesters' signs were uniform and professionally printed, which is apparently bad (professionally done = spending money = stimulating the economy = very very bad). What is so wrong about promoting a contrarian point of view? Palin also seems to have forgotten about all the anti-Obama signs comparing him to Hitler, Stalin and/or Mao.
In another excerpt, she goes on a weird rant about American Idol. You read that correctly. American Idol. Not only did she miss the fact that the point of the show (like all television) is to entertain, but she admitted her favorite judge is Simon! But back to the former. Palin does not seem to understand that American Idol is not about the competitors who go on the show and willingly embarrass themselves, but the viewing audience.
I watch the first few audition episodes of American Idol because it is entertaining. There is a reason why the producers show some of the worst singers and not just the best voices at this stage. By the time it becomes an actual competition, I tune out and let people who like heavily-overplayed pop music watch and vote week after week. That is how American Idol works.
And then somehow Palin turns it into a metaphor for America:
"Unfortunately, Cowell is almost alone in his willingness to tell hard truths. Instead, a growing chorus of voices is trying to convince our kids that hard work isn't necessary anymore, that they're entitled to a lengthening list of benefits paid for by others, and that they don't have to accept the consequences of their actions when those consequences are bad. Those voices seem to think that the purpose of government -- the purpose of America -- isn't to promise equal opportunity but to produce equal outcomes."
But it is ok for Bristol Palin to be on Dancing With The Stars, which is an "uplifting, family-oriented show." So family-oriented, in fact, that Bristol Palin made a promise to dress more modestly than other contestants (which she later broke by making another promise to dress "sexy" for the show). How exactly is there any difference between American Idol and Dancing With The Stars?
It seems like half of the book is devoted entirely to paint Bristol Palin in a positive light. Yes, I understand Sarah Palin is a proud mother, but to say she was overly-positive is an understatement. Bristol works full time, Bristol goes to college, Bristol is a devoted mother, Bristol is a role model, Bristol faced the music, Bristol more than paid the price, Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, Bristol. How did Sarah Palin describe her daughter's pregnancy?
"Her adolescence had been prematurely halted and, in most unfortunate circumstances, she was going to have a baby,"
That is certainly one way of putting it. And then Sarah Palin goes the "do as I say, not as I do" route with her daughter.
"She has been accused of being a hypocrite. But to those critics I say this: Which is the more courageous course for a young, single mother: to sit down and shut up and avoid the critics, or to speak out in a painfully honest way about how tough single parenting is? I'm biased, of course, but given a choice of role models between Bristol and Murphy Brown, I choose Bristol."
Moving on, the last excerpts are Palin going on about how abortion is wrong, pro-choice people are hurting America, "new feminism" (her emphasis, not mine) and how God knew what he was doing when she found out Trig would be born with Down Syndrome. I would say that these excerpts are enough for me, and I will not waste my money on her new book if these few pages are any indication of what else is in store.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
College Basketball (Wake Me Up In March)
I do not care very much for college basketball and I will not apologize for it. I know some people think it is the greatest thing on earth, and that the first day of college basketball should be a national holiday. I do not, and I am not sorry. Just let me know when we get to March Madness, and unless there is a team I have a rooting interest for (only a handful), wake me up when we get to the Elite Eight.
Keep in mind that I like professional basketball. I am an avid Chicago Bulls fan and thoroughly despise the Miami Heat. But closely following college hoops would be too much. There are 346 different schools in Division I college basketball. 346. 346. Take a moment and swallow that. 346. That is not a typo. The NBA only has 30 and I probably would forget at least one if asked to recite all of them at once. 346.
On top of that, each one of these 346 teams has to play around 30 games. What other sports are taking place during college basketball season? Professional football, professional basketball, hockey and college football. I only really pay close attention to professional football and basketball, while having rooting interests for only specific teams when it comes to hockey (Blackhawks) and college football (Hoosiers). This a fundamental reason why have trouble finding an interest in college basketball: the vastness of it all.
At any point, any of those 346 could rise to prominence and then be gone a second later. Think of how many players and coaches you would have to keep track of, just in case. With such a long schedule and so many teams, there is always a great deal of shifting among teams in the Top 25 to the point where I cannot keep any of them straight, except for the big names or top one or two.
I already commit enough pointless information about teams, players and coaches for several sports to memory as it is. Professional baseball and football are the guiltiest parties. Is this bad? Well I would say it is rather tedious and pointless to recall how good or bad a random player that most have never heard of is. Even outside of fantasy sports (much of the blame can be put there, but I love fantasy), my knowledge is unnecessarily extensive. I do not think I can handle adding 346 more teams-worth of information, nor do I desire to.
If you are a rabid college hoops fan, I can understand that. I am the same way about other sports, just not this one. It would just be too exhausting to add it on top of everything else. And I want to take a moment and quickly address an issue some have been raising (it concerns college football as well). Given the various recruiting scandals, NCAA violations and allegations of players getting payed/receiving improper benefits/etc. some people think that college athletes should be payed. Do these people know what a scholarship is?
Until next time, Orange Hat (and hair!) Guy
Keep in mind that I like professional basketball. I am an avid Chicago Bulls fan and thoroughly despise the Miami Heat. But closely following college hoops would be too much. There are 346 different schools in Division I college basketball. 346. 346. Take a moment and swallow that. 346. That is not a typo. The NBA only has 30 and I probably would forget at least one if asked to recite all of them at once. 346.
On top of that, each one of these 346 teams has to play around 30 games. What other sports are taking place during college basketball season? Professional football, professional basketball, hockey and college football. I only really pay close attention to professional football and basketball, while having rooting interests for only specific teams when it comes to hockey (Blackhawks) and college football (Hoosiers). This a fundamental reason why have trouble finding an interest in college basketball: the vastness of it all.
At any point, any of those 346 could rise to prominence and then be gone a second later. Think of how many players and coaches you would have to keep track of, just in case. With such a long schedule and so many teams, there is always a great deal of shifting among teams in the Top 25 to the point where I cannot keep any of them straight, except for the big names or top one or two.
I already commit enough pointless information about teams, players and coaches for several sports to memory as it is. Professional baseball and football are the guiltiest parties. Is this bad? Well I would say it is rather tedious and pointless to recall how good or bad a random player that most have never heard of is. Even outside of fantasy sports (much of the blame can be put there, but I love fantasy), my knowledge is unnecessarily extensive. I do not think I can handle adding 346 more teams-worth of information, nor do I desire to.
If you are a rabid college hoops fan, I can understand that. I am the same way about other sports, just not this one. It would just be too exhausting to add it on top of everything else. And I want to take a moment and quickly address an issue some have been raising (it concerns college football as well). Given the various recruiting scandals, NCAA violations and allegations of players getting payed/receiving improper benefits/etc. some people think that college athletes should be payed. Do these people know what a scholarship is?
Until next time, Orange Hat (and hair!) Guy
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Why I Love Battlestar Galactica
I have recently started watching the re-imagined version of the 1970s science fiction show Battlestar Galactica, and so far I really love it. I am only midway through the second season but up to this point the show has greatly impressed me. It is the perfect mix of science fiction, politics, philosophy and religion (coincidentally four things I love discussing).
The show's premise is mapped out extremely well: the human race's 12 home planets are attacked and massacred by a race of machines called Cylons that were originally created by the humans. With about 50,000 survivors left, the decimated remains of the human race must survive while being outnumbered by the enemy in an unforgiving part of the galaxy. While lacking political cohesion (the highest ranking politician is the Secretary of Education) and dealing with the new threat that Cylons can perfectly mimic human form, the crew of the warship Battlestar Galactica must rally behind the belief that the commander of the fleet can lead them to their mythical home planet of Earth.
Is it a little dense? Yes, of course it is. This is science fiction, what did you expect? But the beauty of it all lies in its execution. Compared to other space-based science fiction franchises such as Star Trek, there is a wonderful sense of realism. With the show's creators and writers (many of whom are Star Trek alums) producing the show through the lens of a post-9/11 world, the characters, events, setting and design, it is not afraid to get very dark and very real.
The characters are well-written, with all of them having their own problems. These deep flaws really help create drama that other science fiction shows lack by making the characters feel more human. They make wrong decisions sometimes, and these wrong decisions sometimes end up with disastrous consequences (an ill-advised military coup; mistreatment of Cylon prisoners). These are decisions that have lasting consequences as well. Unlike most shows, the problem is not fixed after 43 minutes. And there is no clean slate with which to start the next episode.
The setting is also expertly designed. When Secretary of Education Laura Roslin assumes the office of the president, there is no smooth transition. She must deal with dissent among citizens who feel she should not have assumed office, opposition from a former terrorist/freedom fighter (clearly influenced by people such as Bill Ayers or Timothy McVeigh) and a less-than-smooth relationship with Commander William Adama, the head of the military.
The fleet also has to deal with prisoner ships, fuel and water shortages, the discovery of another Battlestar (along with someone who has a higher rank than Adama) and concerns over loyalty for the president and the military. There are major conflicts between characters and story arcs that take place over multiple episodes, which helps stretch out tension.
The feel of the show is well-constructed: it is not outlandish or pretty. People communicate via phones (and not fancy ones; we are talking old-fashioned land-line designs). They still use paper. The sets are dark and gritty; there is no Apple Store feel like there was in the new Star Trek movie. Ships can travel faster than light, but it takes time and can only jump from one place to another, unable to maintain faster than light speeds. And when they jump, they do not know where they will end up. They still use nuclear weapons and projectile firearms (no phasers). The medicine is not much more advanced than it is today. People get angry, parts break down, things fall apart.
But there is more to the show than just plot. Like I said earlier, it has a great mix of politics, philosophy and religion. Politically, there is a great deal of turmoil surrounding President Roslin. She has to cope with dissidents such as terrorist/freedom fighter (depending on who you ask) Tom Zarek, rough relations with the military and has an upcoming election to deal with. Is she handling the apocalyptic situation well? Is she representative of the people? Are her actions helping or compromising the security of the fleet? How much should religion factor in her decision-making and image? Could Tom Zarek do a better job? These are the types of political issues the show raises and addresses well.
The religion of Battlestar Galactica is also significant. Humans are pan-theists, who believe in the 12 Lords of Kobol. The ancient texts talk of a dying leader (Roslin is dying of breast cancer) who will lead the people to Earth, and Roslin begins to accepty her role as a sort of emissary after having visions predicted in the ancient texts. Her faith also leads her to make an order that opens a huge can of worms when it challenges the orders of Commander Adama. Contrastingly, the Cylons are monotheists, believing in a single forgiving god unrelated to the Lords of Kobol. The religions presented highlight issues such as faith, the role of faith in making important decisions, debate over which theistic belief is right, and if any of the gods even exist.
But my favorite part of Battlestar Galactica is the philosophical questions it poses. Cylons are able to perfectly replicate human form all the way down the the DNA sequences. But are they human? Or are they still machines? They can still feel emotions such as love. They can feel pain, incur psychological distress (one Cylon prisoner is repeatedly beaten and raped) and even be impregnated by a human. What if a Cylon and a human have a baby? What is the child? Most simply see these Cylons as mindless killing machines, incapable of understanding what it means to be human.
But what does it mean to be human? This is the fascinating philosophical question that Battlestar Galactica throws at you, and I still have yet to come up with an answer in that context. But that is what I like about the show and about science fiction in general: it challenges me to think about such fundamental questions about human nature in a brand new light. This is the brilliance of Battlestar Galactica.
I hope that, as I continue watching, it maintains its quality and continues to come up with challenging questions and scenarios that I have come to love about the show. If you like intelligent television that really makes you think, this the show for you (or at least the first season and a half). If you do not like such television, enjoy the Jersey Shore.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
The show's premise is mapped out extremely well: the human race's 12 home planets are attacked and massacred by a race of machines called Cylons that were originally created by the humans. With about 50,000 survivors left, the decimated remains of the human race must survive while being outnumbered by the enemy in an unforgiving part of the galaxy. While lacking political cohesion (the highest ranking politician is the Secretary of Education) and dealing with the new threat that Cylons can perfectly mimic human form, the crew of the warship Battlestar Galactica must rally behind the belief that the commander of the fleet can lead them to their mythical home planet of Earth.
Is it a little dense? Yes, of course it is. This is science fiction, what did you expect? But the beauty of it all lies in its execution. Compared to other space-based science fiction franchises such as Star Trek, there is a wonderful sense of realism. With the show's creators and writers (many of whom are Star Trek alums) producing the show through the lens of a post-9/11 world, the characters, events, setting and design, it is not afraid to get very dark and very real.
The characters are well-written, with all of them having their own problems. These deep flaws really help create drama that other science fiction shows lack by making the characters feel more human. They make wrong decisions sometimes, and these wrong decisions sometimes end up with disastrous consequences (an ill-advised military coup; mistreatment of Cylon prisoners). These are decisions that have lasting consequences as well. Unlike most shows, the problem is not fixed after 43 minutes. And there is no clean slate with which to start the next episode.
The setting is also expertly designed. When Secretary of Education Laura Roslin assumes the office of the president, there is no smooth transition. She must deal with dissent among citizens who feel she should not have assumed office, opposition from a former terrorist/freedom fighter (clearly influenced by people such as Bill Ayers or Timothy McVeigh) and a less-than-smooth relationship with Commander William Adama, the head of the military.
The fleet also has to deal with prisoner ships, fuel and water shortages, the discovery of another Battlestar (along with someone who has a higher rank than Adama) and concerns over loyalty for the president and the military. There are major conflicts between characters and story arcs that take place over multiple episodes, which helps stretch out tension.
The feel of the show is well-constructed: it is not outlandish or pretty. People communicate via phones (and not fancy ones; we are talking old-fashioned land-line designs). They still use paper. The sets are dark and gritty; there is no Apple Store feel like there was in the new Star Trek movie. Ships can travel faster than light, but it takes time and can only jump from one place to another, unable to maintain faster than light speeds. And when they jump, they do not know where they will end up. They still use nuclear weapons and projectile firearms (no phasers). The medicine is not much more advanced than it is today. People get angry, parts break down, things fall apart.
But there is more to the show than just plot. Like I said earlier, it has a great mix of politics, philosophy and religion. Politically, there is a great deal of turmoil surrounding President Roslin. She has to cope with dissidents such as terrorist/freedom fighter (depending on who you ask) Tom Zarek, rough relations with the military and has an upcoming election to deal with. Is she handling the apocalyptic situation well? Is she representative of the people? Are her actions helping or compromising the security of the fleet? How much should religion factor in her decision-making and image? Could Tom Zarek do a better job? These are the types of political issues the show raises and addresses well.
The religion of Battlestar Galactica is also significant. Humans are pan-theists, who believe in the 12 Lords of Kobol. The ancient texts talk of a dying leader (Roslin is dying of breast cancer) who will lead the people to Earth, and Roslin begins to accepty her role as a sort of emissary after having visions predicted in the ancient texts. Her faith also leads her to make an order that opens a huge can of worms when it challenges the orders of Commander Adama. Contrastingly, the Cylons are monotheists, believing in a single forgiving god unrelated to the Lords of Kobol. The religions presented highlight issues such as faith, the role of faith in making important decisions, debate over which theistic belief is right, and if any of the gods even exist.
But my favorite part of Battlestar Galactica is the philosophical questions it poses. Cylons are able to perfectly replicate human form all the way down the the DNA sequences. But are they human? Or are they still machines? They can still feel emotions such as love. They can feel pain, incur psychological distress (one Cylon prisoner is repeatedly beaten and raped) and even be impregnated by a human. What if a Cylon and a human have a baby? What is the child? Most simply see these Cylons as mindless killing machines, incapable of understanding what it means to be human.
But what does it mean to be human? This is the fascinating philosophical question that Battlestar Galactica throws at you, and I still have yet to come up with an answer in that context. But that is what I like about the show and about science fiction in general: it challenges me to think about such fundamental questions about human nature in a brand new light. This is the brilliance of Battlestar Galactica.
I hope that, as I continue watching, it maintains its quality and continues to come up with challenging questions and scenarios that I have come to love about the show. If you like intelligent television that really makes you think, this the show for you (or at least the first season and a half). If you do not like such television, enjoy the Jersey Shore.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Election Madness!
As you are probably aware of, there was a relatively important election Tuesday night. Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and the Democrats' numbers in the Senate shrunk. And no pot for California. All in all, it was not a great night for a liberal-minded person like me. But what does it all mean? I will give you my opinion on Tuesday's results as best I can (because I know you are all dying to hear my opinion).
First off, let us focus on Proposition 19 in California. Prop 19 would have legalized the use of marijuana for those 21 and over as well as letting the state government regulate and tax its sales and distribution. Had it passed, California would have been renamed Amsterdam West. Being a liberal college student, I wish it would have passed. I believe it would hurt the drug cartels and also help raise revenue for a state that is in a very dire financial situation. But I will stop before I end up going on a lengthy drug rant.
Next up, the House. Once again the lower half of the legislative branch has a Republican majority, as the GOP gave the Democrats in the House a "shellacking," to quote President Obama. This can be a good thing, however. John Boehner will become Speaker of the House, which is a huge step forward for orange people. Jokes aside, this should bring about more compromise and bipartisanship that could help Obama get reelected in 2012.
This is a fine line to walk though. If Obama and the Democrats compromise with the Republicans and it works out well (i.e. job creation and resurrecting the economy), there is a danger that voters will credit the Republicans for the turnaround and subsequently vote Obama out of office. If the Democrats refuse to compromise, they come off looking bad as well because their refusal to engage in bipartisanship (which has already hurt them in this election) would likely drive voters away from them. They would appear as if they are putting politics ahead of getting things done. The key is then how well the Republicans' policies work if they are implemented.
Now for the Senate. The Democrats maintained their majority, but it shrunk considerably from a near filibuster-proof number of 59 to at least 52 (Washington's senate race is still too close to call; CNN has the Democrat leading by about 28,000 votes with 74% precincts reporting). So far the Democrats have lost six seats (ND, WI, IL, IN, AR, PA), with the losses in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana being the most painful. The Democrats were able to reelect Harry Reid (though I would not have been real sad to see him go) and defeat Christine O'Donnell (a huge step backwards for witches wanting to run for political office).
The losses of Russ Feingold, Evan Bayh and Obama's old seat all hurt because they were winnable. Russ Feingold had been a three-term senator, and usually it is very hard to unseat an incumbent. Evan Bayh's decision to retire from the Senate also hurt because he did late in the primary season, leaving Indiana state Democrats rushing to find a replacement to nominate and run against former Indiana senator Dan Coats. And losing Obama's old seat is disappointing because the Democrats had an opportunity to avoid it being a close race. I do not mean to decry the choice of Alexi Giannoulias, but from what I understand there were better choices than him (state attorney general Lisa Madigan I believe was one because she is quite popular in Illinois).
As for the various races for governor, I only really payed attention to California and Illinois (I voted via absentee ballot for the state of Illinois). I was glad to see that Meg Whitman, Republican and former Ebay president and CEO, lost in the California race. California, arguably the most liberal state in the US, needs to stay liberal so that it can set the trends that other states can follow (such as, for a time, gay marriage). Meanwhile in Illinois, it looks like Pat Quinn (who took over as governor when Blago was impeached) will hold onto his slim lead and get reelected. Which does not mean much. Choosing between Quinn and Republican Bill Brady was like picking between either having your arm or leg broken. Neither one was a good option. But at least Quinn is not Blago, and that is an improvement.
Now I want to talk about a minor thing for a second. On the Illinois ballot, there was a amendment to change the Illinois state constitution to make it easier to kick a sitting governor out of office by allowing a petition for a recall election and then a special election to replace the ousted governor. I am not of the origins of this proposition but I have a feeling that the Blago incident had a powerful influence. The amendment easily passed with over 60% of the vote.
I voted against it, and I would like to explain why. My position is that this gives voters too much power to the point where I feel like they can abuse the amendment beyond its intended purpose. I understand why people would want such an amendment following Blago' adventure, but giving voters the power to recall a governor could hypothetically lead to voters ousting someone outside the bounds of what should be taken into account when wanting to remove an elected official. But I was in the minority. Oh well.
What does this election mean? This is the big question that is being asked and analyzed and analyzed and analyzed and analyzed. So how am I going to address that question? Analyze! I think there a couple things to take out of this election and what it means for the next two years. To begin with, 2011 is going to be a make-it-or-break-it year for Obama. Because of the Republican control of the House, he will need to navigate that thin line very carefully, as I said earlier. Can he do it? I think he can, but I am worried that will not be the perception of most people, as many do not understand how beneficial health care reform will be or how/why the stimulus has yet to rescue the economy.
I also think this is an opportunity for the Republicans to show they actually have legitimate policy ideas that will work and can garner voter support. They have spent the first two years of Obama's presidency focusing completely on obstructionism instead of attempting to develop serious legislation that had realistic chances of passing. The ball is in their court, and it is time to make something happen. If they can, they have a legitimate, if still challenging, chance of taking the White House in 2012. If they cannot, they will have helped keep Obama in office beyond 2012.
The main concern for both parties moving forward must be job creation and resurrecting the economy. That was the biggest issue for voters in this election according to exit polls, and it should be the main focus going forward. The stimulus, if it were actually implemented properly, could help. But thanks to resistance by Republican-led states and misinformation about how it has and has not worked, there exists a negative perception of how the economy is getting fixed.
What do I hope will happen over the next two years? I hope that the Republican-led House understands their place (they are still in the minority because Democrats still control two-thirds of the legislative process: the Senate and the presidency) and do not try to act as if they are the ones who will lead the effort on bipartisanship or expect Democrats to compromise on Republican issues more than Democratic issues. I also hope the Democrats realize this and show some guts by not caving to Republican demands.
But realistically, I do not expect much to happen. Obama will probably call on Democrats to make a greater effort for bipartisanship on lesser issues and call on Republicans to put politics aside on more important issues and make concessions on some Democrat demands. However, I do not expect there to be any major legislation that both sides can agree on. Relatively minor polices may get passed, but I believe that Obama has gotten all the major legislation he wanted to get passed (by taking advantage of the great congressional majorities he had in his first two years). I expect Obama will try and maneuver himself to appear as a negotiator rather than a legislator in an effort to appear less partisan than he has been. And I think he can pull it off because he is a master at understanding the public's perception of him and knowing how to turn it to his advantage.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
First off, let us focus on Proposition 19 in California. Prop 19 would have legalized the use of marijuana for those 21 and over as well as letting the state government regulate and tax its sales and distribution. Had it passed, California would have been renamed Amsterdam West. Being a liberal college student, I wish it would have passed. I believe it would hurt the drug cartels and also help raise revenue for a state that is in a very dire financial situation. But I will stop before I end up going on a lengthy drug rant.
Next up, the House. Once again the lower half of the legislative branch has a Republican majority, as the GOP gave the Democrats in the House a "shellacking," to quote President Obama. This can be a good thing, however. John Boehner will become Speaker of the House, which is a huge step forward for orange people. Jokes aside, this should bring about more compromise and bipartisanship that could help Obama get reelected in 2012.
This is a fine line to walk though. If Obama and the Democrats compromise with the Republicans and it works out well (i.e. job creation and resurrecting the economy), there is a danger that voters will credit the Republicans for the turnaround and subsequently vote Obama out of office. If the Democrats refuse to compromise, they come off looking bad as well because their refusal to engage in bipartisanship (which has already hurt them in this election) would likely drive voters away from them. They would appear as if they are putting politics ahead of getting things done. The key is then how well the Republicans' policies work if they are implemented.
Now for the Senate. The Democrats maintained their majority, but it shrunk considerably from a near filibuster-proof number of 59 to at least 52 (Washington's senate race is still too close to call; CNN has the Democrat leading by about 28,000 votes with 74% precincts reporting). So far the Democrats have lost six seats (ND, WI, IL, IN, AR, PA), with the losses in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana being the most painful. The Democrats were able to reelect Harry Reid (though I would not have been real sad to see him go) and defeat Christine O'Donnell (a huge step backwards for witches wanting to run for political office).
The losses of Russ Feingold, Evan Bayh and Obama's old seat all hurt because they were winnable. Russ Feingold had been a three-term senator, and usually it is very hard to unseat an incumbent. Evan Bayh's decision to retire from the Senate also hurt because he did late in the primary season, leaving Indiana state Democrats rushing to find a replacement to nominate and run against former Indiana senator Dan Coats. And losing Obama's old seat is disappointing because the Democrats had an opportunity to avoid it being a close race. I do not mean to decry the choice of Alexi Giannoulias, but from what I understand there were better choices than him (state attorney general Lisa Madigan I believe was one because she is quite popular in Illinois).
As for the various races for governor, I only really payed attention to California and Illinois (I voted via absentee ballot for the state of Illinois). I was glad to see that Meg Whitman, Republican and former Ebay president and CEO, lost in the California race. California, arguably the most liberal state in the US, needs to stay liberal so that it can set the trends that other states can follow (such as, for a time, gay marriage). Meanwhile in Illinois, it looks like Pat Quinn (who took over as governor when Blago was impeached) will hold onto his slim lead and get reelected. Which does not mean much. Choosing between Quinn and Republican Bill Brady was like picking between either having your arm or leg broken. Neither one was a good option. But at least Quinn is not Blago, and that is an improvement.
Now I want to talk about a minor thing for a second. On the Illinois ballot, there was a amendment to change the Illinois state constitution to make it easier to kick a sitting governor out of office by allowing a petition for a recall election and then a special election to replace the ousted governor. I am not of the origins of this proposition but I have a feeling that the Blago incident had a powerful influence. The amendment easily passed with over 60% of the vote.
I voted against it, and I would like to explain why. My position is that this gives voters too much power to the point where I feel like they can abuse the amendment beyond its intended purpose. I understand why people would want such an amendment following Blago' adventure, but giving voters the power to recall a governor could hypothetically lead to voters ousting someone outside the bounds of what should be taken into account when wanting to remove an elected official. But I was in the minority. Oh well.
What does this election mean? This is the big question that is being asked and analyzed and analyzed and analyzed and analyzed. So how am I going to address that question? Analyze! I think there a couple things to take out of this election and what it means for the next two years. To begin with, 2011 is going to be a make-it-or-break-it year for Obama. Because of the Republican control of the House, he will need to navigate that thin line very carefully, as I said earlier. Can he do it? I think he can, but I am worried that will not be the perception of most people, as many do not understand how beneficial health care reform will be or how/why the stimulus has yet to rescue the economy.
I also think this is an opportunity for the Republicans to show they actually have legitimate policy ideas that will work and can garner voter support. They have spent the first two years of Obama's presidency focusing completely on obstructionism instead of attempting to develop serious legislation that had realistic chances of passing. The ball is in their court, and it is time to make something happen. If they can, they have a legitimate, if still challenging, chance of taking the White House in 2012. If they cannot, they will have helped keep Obama in office beyond 2012.
The main concern for both parties moving forward must be job creation and resurrecting the economy. That was the biggest issue for voters in this election according to exit polls, and it should be the main focus going forward. The stimulus, if it were actually implemented properly, could help. But thanks to resistance by Republican-led states and misinformation about how it has and has not worked, there exists a negative perception of how the economy is getting fixed.
What do I hope will happen over the next two years? I hope that the Republican-led House understands their place (they are still in the minority because Democrats still control two-thirds of the legislative process: the Senate and the presidency) and do not try to act as if they are the ones who will lead the effort on bipartisanship or expect Democrats to compromise on Republican issues more than Democratic issues. I also hope the Democrats realize this and show some guts by not caving to Republican demands.
But realistically, I do not expect much to happen. Obama will probably call on Democrats to make a greater effort for bipartisanship on lesser issues and call on Republicans to put politics aside on more important issues and make concessions on some Democrat demands. However, I do not expect there to be any major legislation that both sides can agree on. Relatively minor polices may get passed, but I believe that Obama has gotten all the major legislation he wanted to get passed (by taking advantage of the great congressional majorities he had in his first two years). I expect Obama will try and maneuver himself to appear as a negotiator rather than a legislator in an effort to appear less partisan than he has been. And I think he can pull it off because he is a master at understanding the public's perception of him and knowing how to turn it to his advantage.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Sunday, October 31, 2010
My Journalism Project
I posted this yesterday but the there was a problem with the flash file so let's try again.
For my journalism class this semester I had a slide show project. It incorporates photographs and audio recordings that I took/recorded, compiled and edited together. You can check it out here:
http://journalism.indiana.edu/studentwork/kelly_j210_fall2010/?p=1337
Enjoy.
For my journalism class this semester I had a slide show project. It incorporates photographs and audio recordings that I took/recorded, compiled and edited together. You can check it out here:
http://journalism.indiana.edu/studentwork/kelly_j210_fall2010/?p=1337
Enjoy.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tornado!
What an exciting place to live my dorm is. We have problems with fire alarms, elevators and no longer having any trays in the dining hall (I will not blog about that, considering it will just wind up being one long rant). And this morning we had to deal with a tornado warning. Fun times.
Sometime around 9 a.m. I was awoken by someone knocking on my door and talking about a tornado warning. Tired and confused, I opened my door to see our floor custodian (who is one cool dude, mind you) banging on everyone's door alerting them about the tornado warning. Why the the janitor doing this and not the RA? I do not know. Perhaps our RA was in class. But the point is I find it funny that I get alerted to a rather serious situation by our floor custodian and not another RA.
Here is the funny thing though: while he told us the safest place to go was to the center ring of the basement, it was not mandatory. Yup, you read that correctly. It was a recommendation that we evacuate our floor and proceed to the basement. Apparently it was required that we be informed of the situation and that we are aware of the option to proceed to the basement but it was not required that we actually go there. Makes perfect sense, right?
But of course I am no idiot. I go downstairs to the basement, thinking about the amount of sleep I am losing because of this stupid weather. It also occurred to me that last night may have been the wrong night to stay up beyond 3 a.m. to finish watching Buffy The Vampire Slayer (though to be fair, the ending to season 6 was FANTASTIC and totally worth the lack of sleep I was beginning to accumulate).
Anyway, back to the basement. We sit there cold, tired, hungry and pillow-less. I brought my laptop, really for no good reason other than to keep from dying from boredom. Facebook, email, other email, other other email, ESPN, Twitter, weather.com, Facebook again. Finally we were given the all-clear after about 15 minutes and slowly trudged back up the stairs to our rooms to go back to sleep.
So yeah. Tornado procedures at my dorm did not feel like anything new: dumb, confusing and time-consuming. Another funny thing: I received an alert text from IU that the tornado warning had been lifted, but I never got one telling that there was one in the first place. Maybe they should work on that or something.
And (last time I swear) I cannot stress enough how AMAZING the ending of season 6 of Buffy was. And if you do disagree, let me say this: with all due respect, go die in a fire.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
P.S. I should add that I still have to attend classes today.
Sometime around 9 a.m. I was awoken by someone knocking on my door and talking about a tornado warning. Tired and confused, I opened my door to see our floor custodian (who is one cool dude, mind you) banging on everyone's door alerting them about the tornado warning. Why the the janitor doing this and not the RA? I do not know. Perhaps our RA was in class. But the point is I find it funny that I get alerted to a rather serious situation by our floor custodian and not another RA.
Here is the funny thing though: while he told us the safest place to go was to the center ring of the basement, it was not mandatory. Yup, you read that correctly. It was a recommendation that we evacuate our floor and proceed to the basement. Apparently it was required that we be informed of the situation and that we are aware of the option to proceed to the basement but it was not required that we actually go there. Makes perfect sense, right?
But of course I am no idiot. I go downstairs to the basement, thinking about the amount of sleep I am losing because of this stupid weather. It also occurred to me that last night may have been the wrong night to stay up beyond 3 a.m. to finish watching Buffy The Vampire Slayer (though to be fair, the ending to season 6 was FANTASTIC and totally worth the lack of sleep I was beginning to accumulate).
Anyway, back to the basement. We sit there cold, tired, hungry and pillow-less. I brought my laptop, really for no good reason other than to keep from dying from boredom. Facebook, email, other email, other other email, ESPN, Twitter, weather.com, Facebook again. Finally we were given the all-clear after about 15 minutes and slowly trudged back up the stairs to our rooms to go back to sleep.
So yeah. Tornado procedures at my dorm did not feel like anything new: dumb, confusing and time-consuming. Another funny thing: I received an alert text from IU that the tornado warning had been lifted, but I never got one telling that there was one in the first place. Maybe they should work on that or something.
And (last time I swear) I cannot stress enough how AMAZING the ending of season 6 of Buffy was. And if you do disagree, let me say this: with all due respect, go die in a fire.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
P.S. I should add that I still have to attend classes today.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Checking In On The Mike Martz Experiment
If you are a Bears fan, you have probably noticed the remarkable decline the team has been on over the last few games. There is plenty of blame to go around: the offensive line, Jay Cutler's play, Lovie Smith's coaching and Mike Martz's decision-making. When the Bears first decided to hire Martz, I was quite sure it was the wrong move. So wrong, in fact, I would have rather kept Ron Turner, as terrible as he was.
I wrote an email back in February to a family member when she asked me about what I thought of the Martz hire and I have to say that what I predicted has been fairly accurate (granted it has only been seven games). In summarizing my email, let us look back at my reasons for not hiring Martz and see how they have matched up with the current state of the team:
2. His quarterbacks have a propencity for getting hit a lot. Warner, Bulger and Kitna all were either injured at some point or took WAY too many sacks. Martz's system relies heavily on the O-line to do an outstanding job of pass blocking, and because he favors the pass so much it is inevitable that the QB will take a lot of hits. Here are the sack and games played numbers for QBs under Martz:
Now let us look at how Jay Cutler and the Bears are doing this season under Martz:
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
I wrote an email back in February to a family member when she asked me about what I thought of the Martz hire and I have to say that what I predicted has been fairly accurate (granted it has only been seven games). In summarizing my email, let us look back at my reasons for not hiring Martz and see how they have matched up with the current state of the team:
- His quarterbacks (not including Jay Cutler) have a propencity for throwing interceptions. A lot of interceptions. Here are the numbers for QBs under Martz:
- Kurt Warner in STL had 65 ints in 52 games
- Marc Bulger in STL had 44 ints in 37 game
- Jon Kitna in DET had 42 ints in 32 games
- J.T. O'Sullivan in SF had 11 ints and 11 fumbles in 9 games
- Shaun Hill in SF had 8 ints in 9 games (8 starts).
2. His quarterbacks have a propencity for getting hit a lot. Warner, Bulger and Kitna all were either injured at some point or took WAY too many sacks. Martz's system relies heavily on the O-line to do an outstanding job of pass blocking, and because he favors the pass so much it is inevitable that the QB will take a lot of hits. Here are the sack and games played numbers for QBs under Martz:
- Kurt Warner was sacked 114 times in 52 games and also missed 28 games over 5 seasons
- Marc Bulger was sacked 116 times in 44 games and also missed 11 games in 3 seasons as a starter (never played a full season under Martz)
- Jon Kitna was sacked 114 times in 32 games
- J.T. O'Sullivan was sacked 32 times in 9 games
- Shaun Hill was sacked 23 times in 9 games
3. His tight ends have a propencity to not be included much in the offense because they're too busy blocking. Vernon Davis, SF tight end had 2 touchdowns while starting 16 games under Martz. Once Martz left, he had 13 the next season. 13! Where was he under Martz? Greg Olsen is in no way a blocker and will probably be under utilized and overlooked.
Now let us look at how Jay Cutler and the Bears are doing this season under Martz:
- Jay Cutler has 7 ints in 6 games
- Jay Cutler has been sacked 27 times in 6 games and already missed a game due to a concussion
- Greg Olsen is on pace to catch 41 passes, which would be the lowest of his career since his rookie year and has also had 2 games where he caught zero passes, also a first since his rookie season
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Night Of The Living Elevators!
Have you ever been stuck in an elevator? Because I just was. It is one of those things most people hear about but always think "that will never happen to me." Until it does. Like it did to me. Granted it was only for about two minutes, but it was still a unique experience. And because this a blog on the interwebs, I need to tell you all about it. Every. Last. Detail.
But first, let me tell you about this specific elevator. In the dorm I live in, this elevator seems to break down at least once a week. Seems safe, right? I have ridden up and down that elevator hundreds of times and never once have I gotten stuck in it. Until tonight. Yup, I beat the odds. Oh how lucky I am.
I should also tell you that I am the second person in my family to get stuck in an elevator in the past three months alone. Evidently, elevators are taking their revenge. At my family reunion in August, my uncle got stuck in a elevator for almost half an hour before he was finally rescued. Compared to that, my ordeal does not seem so bad.
It all started out innocently enough. I left my room to get something to eat from the little cafe in the dorm. I called the elevator and got in when it arrived. It started heading down. Everything good so far. Then it got to the first floor (the floor I was going to get off at) and that is when the trouble started. While the elevator halted once it reached the first floor, the doors did not open and it felt like the motor did not stop.
Great. Just great. Fantastic. Absolutely wonderful.
I pressed the open-doors button. Nothing. I hit the first floor button. Nothing. I hit the basement floor button. Nothing. I hit the alarm button. It made a ringing noise but again, nothing.
OK. Don't panic. Try to pry the doors open. Nothing. Hit the alarm button again. Nothing. Try to pry the doors again. Nothing.
Great. Fan-bleeping-tastic.
So I paused for a second, pulled out my phone and updated my Facebook status. "Stuck in the read curry elevator. not joking. please help." Now this may seem silly, but consider this: I'm friends with someone who is an RA for another floor in my dorm's wing (and uses the same elevator). So if he saw that post, he would know who to alert. See? There was logic behind that decision.
Anyway, I hit the same buttons again hopelessly and decided to try and pry the doors open again. And guess what? The doors opened.
Hallelujah! Halle-freaking-lujah!
I got the hell out of the elevator which, surprisingly, had reached the first floor perfectly (the elevator floor was level with the lobby floor). It seems like all that happened was that the doors failed to open. Why did they not open the first two times I tried to pry them open? I do not know. I'm a doctor, not an elevator technician. (Note: I am not actually a doctor).
But I escaped. But that is not all . After I told someone at the center desk what happened, I checked my mailbox. I had received a package from my parents. And when I receive a package from my parents, there are only two possibilities: cookies or brownies. And it was brownies.You could not script a better moment to receive home-made brownies than that.
And how did I get back up to my floor? I used a different elevator. Yup, I skipped the stairs. And did I get stuck again? Nope. I really do not care about learning my lesson. And so what if I would have gotten stuck? Well, I had brownies.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
But first, let me tell you about this specific elevator. In the dorm I live in, this elevator seems to break down at least once a week. Seems safe, right? I have ridden up and down that elevator hundreds of times and never once have I gotten stuck in it. Until tonight. Yup, I beat the odds. Oh how lucky I am.
I should also tell you that I am the second person in my family to get stuck in an elevator in the past three months alone. Evidently, elevators are taking their revenge. At my family reunion in August, my uncle got stuck in a elevator for almost half an hour before he was finally rescued. Compared to that, my ordeal does not seem so bad.
It all started out innocently enough. I left my room to get something to eat from the little cafe in the dorm. I called the elevator and got in when it arrived. It started heading down. Everything good so far. Then it got to the first floor (the floor I was going to get off at) and that is when the trouble started. While the elevator halted once it reached the first floor, the doors did not open and it felt like the motor did not stop.
Great. Just great. Fantastic. Absolutely wonderful.
I pressed the open-doors button. Nothing. I hit the first floor button. Nothing. I hit the basement floor button. Nothing. I hit the alarm button. It made a ringing noise but again, nothing.
OK. Don't panic. Try to pry the doors open. Nothing. Hit the alarm button again. Nothing. Try to pry the doors again. Nothing.
Great. Fan-bleeping-tastic.
So I paused for a second, pulled out my phone and updated my Facebook status. "Stuck in the read curry elevator. not joking. please help." Now this may seem silly, but consider this: I'm friends with someone who is an RA for another floor in my dorm's wing (and uses the same elevator). So if he saw that post, he would know who to alert. See? There was logic behind that decision.
Anyway, I hit the same buttons again hopelessly and decided to try and pry the doors open again. And guess what? The doors opened.
Hallelujah! Halle-freaking-lujah!
I got the hell out of the elevator which, surprisingly, had reached the first floor perfectly (the elevator floor was level with the lobby floor). It seems like all that happened was that the doors failed to open. Why did they not open the first two times I tried to pry them open? I do not know. I'm a doctor, not an elevator technician. (Note: I am not actually a doctor).
But I escaped. But that is not all . After I told someone at the center desk what happened, I checked my mailbox. I had received a package from my parents. And when I receive a package from my parents, there are only two possibilities: cookies or brownies. And it was brownies.You could not script a better moment to receive home-made brownies than that.
And how did I get back up to my floor? I used a different elevator. Yup, I skipped the stairs. And did I get stuck again? Nope. I really do not care about learning my lesson. And so what if I would have gotten stuck? Well, I had brownies.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Quade It Is
It was really a no-win situation for the Cubs. Either pick the guy who has no major league managerial experience, wait halfheartedly to see if another becomes available even though it was highly unlikely, choose a third that would not capture the fans' excitement, or overlook someone who was deserving of the job. That was what the Cubs were facing when picking their new manager.
Let us take a closer look at the pros and cons of all the candidates:
Ryne Sandberg would have to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders without ever having managed in the big leagues. And in one of the largest baseball cities in the country, he would instantly have to adjust to the high profile position of Chicago Cubs manager. It also looks like there is a good chance Sandberg does not return to the Cubs organization. There are other managerial and coaching openings through the majors. It would be unfortunate to see him go, but such is the nature of the beast.
Mike Quade has a ton of managerial and coaching experience in both the minor leagues and the major leagues. He would also not have to face ridiculous expectations, because by retaining him for the next two years, the Cubs are suggesting they are going to a slight rebuilding mode. He is also more familiar with the players. And he showed he can win, with the Cubs having gone 24-13 under him during the final two months of the season.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Let us take a closer look at the pros and cons of all the candidates:
- Ryne Sandberg- a fan favorite, has spent the last four years managing the various levels of the Cubs minor league affiliates, has never managed or even coached in the big leagues, would have big expectations to fill
- Joe Girardi- a fan favorite, has expressed a desire to one day manage the Cubs, is a native of Peoria, Illinois, won a world series as manager of the Yankees, has more professional managerial experience than Sandberg or Quade, is likely to resign with the Yankees after the playoffs and thus making it unlikely he would jump ship to manage the Cubs
- Bob Melvin- has the most professional experience of the group, would not be a big name hire, fans would find the hire uninspiring compared to other candidates, swept the Cubs in 2007 as manager of the Diamondbacks
- Mike Quade- was a minor league manager for 17 years, has been a major league coach for 7 years before becoming the interim manager of the Cubs at the end of the 2010 season, fan favorite, does not have big expectations to fill
Ryne Sandberg would have to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders without ever having managed in the big leagues. And in one of the largest baseball cities in the country, he would instantly have to adjust to the high profile position of Chicago Cubs manager. It also looks like there is a good chance Sandberg does not return to the Cubs organization. There are other managerial and coaching openings through the majors. It would be unfortunate to see him go, but such is the nature of the beast.
Mike Quade has a ton of managerial and coaching experience in both the minor leagues and the major leagues. He would also not have to face ridiculous expectations, because by retaining him for the next two years, the Cubs are suggesting they are going to a slight rebuilding mode. He is also more familiar with the players. And he showed he can win, with the Cubs having gone 24-13 under him during the final two months of the season.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Saturday, October 16, 2010
100 Points? You Bet
Recently, Michael Jordan grabbed headlines by saying that if he were to play in the NBA today, under current league rules, he could score 100 points in a single game. Such an event has happened only once in the history of professional basketball. Wilt Chamberlain scored exactly 100 points in 1962. And Michael Jordan thinks he can do the same now.
And you know what? He can. He absolutely can. Why? Because he is Michael Freaking Jordan. Air Jordan. His Airness. Point guard, six foot six, from the University of North Carolina. Number 23. One of the NBA's Fifty Greatest Players. Also the NBA's greatest player of all time.
Now am I a little biased? Without a doubt. I grew up in Chicago and have been a lifelong Bulls fan. In fact, they won the NBA Championship six times in the first eight years I was alive. Even at three I knew Michael Jordan was spectacular. So forgive me if my opinion of Michael Jordan is a little biased.
Back to the question at hand. Can he score 100 points is he were playing with today's rules, in the prime of his career? Yes. One thousand percent yes. A bajillion percent yes. Again, why? Because he is Michael Jordan, who once scored 38 points with the flu during the NBA Finals. Who once scored 69 points in a playoff game with rules that were a lot less friendly than today. Who would do anything to win.
How exactly would he get 100 points? With today's rules, it is much easier to draw a foul when driving to the basket. No one was better at that Michael Jordan. So in one game he could easily draw 10-15 fouls. That is 20 to 30 free throws. With a career 83% free-throw line, he could grab 20 points alone from the averaged 25 free throws. Kobe Bryant only drew 10 fouls in his 81 point game a few years ago.
And what about the other 80 points? Lay-ups, dunks, jump shots, three-pointers. No one was better at hitting everything when they were in a zone than Michael Jordan. And if he were going up against one of the worst defensive teams in the league, he could easily get off 50-60 field goals, only needing to land 4 three-pointers and 33 two-pointers. Wilt Chamberlain hit 36 field goals while Kobe Bryant made 28.
So Jordan could certainly pull it off. 100 points? You bet.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
And you know what? He can. He absolutely can. Why? Because he is Michael Freaking Jordan. Air Jordan. His Airness. Point guard, six foot six, from the University of North Carolina. Number 23. One of the NBA's Fifty Greatest Players. Also the NBA's greatest player of all time.
Now am I a little biased? Without a doubt. I grew up in Chicago and have been a lifelong Bulls fan. In fact, they won the NBA Championship six times in the first eight years I was alive. Even at three I knew Michael Jordan was spectacular. So forgive me if my opinion of Michael Jordan is a little biased.
Back to the question at hand. Can he score 100 points is he were playing with today's rules, in the prime of his career? Yes. One thousand percent yes. A bajillion percent yes. Again, why? Because he is Michael Jordan, who once scored 38 points with the flu during the NBA Finals. Who once scored 69 points in a playoff game with rules that were a lot less friendly than today. Who would do anything to win.
How exactly would he get 100 points? With today's rules, it is much easier to draw a foul when driving to the basket. No one was better at that Michael Jordan. So in one game he could easily draw 10-15 fouls. That is 20 to 30 free throws. With a career 83% free-throw line, he could grab 20 points alone from the averaged 25 free throws. Kobe Bryant only drew 10 fouls in his 81 point game a few years ago.
And what about the other 80 points? Lay-ups, dunks, jump shots, three-pointers. No one was better at hitting everything when they were in a zone than Michael Jordan. And if he were going up against one of the worst defensive teams in the league, he could easily get off 50-60 field goals, only needing to land 4 three-pointers and 33 two-pointers. Wilt Chamberlain hit 36 field goals while Kobe Bryant made 28.
So Jordan could certainly pull it off. 100 points? You bet.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Friday, October 15, 2010
Fire Alarms
I live in a dorm. It is the same dorm I lived in last year. And last year we had an abundance of fire alarms. As I soon discovered, from upperclassmen who have lived in the same dorm before, an abnormally large amount of fire alarms in apparently the norm. And I got used to that. We ended up having (or so it seemed; I did not take count) about two to three fire alarms a month.
So what happens when the fire alarm goes off?
Then we got the OK and went back to our rooms. My roommate and I decided to go bed because there was no way another alarm would go off, right? Wrong. Exactly an hour after the first alarm went off, a second one came along and decided it did not want us to get any sleep. But on the plus side, Banjo Guy was back And, as bonus, a guy with a mandolin also showed up. So we had a second singalong.
Fortunately, that was the last fire alarm for the night. I also thought that a two-fire alarm night could not be topped. Even people who had lived in the dorm before last year had never experienced a two-fire alarm night. So there was no possible way a three-fire alarm night could ever happen. Ever. Until it did.
Believe it or not, my dorm had a three-fire alarm night. And I was lucky enough to witness it. We have already had three fire alarms before that night (I am definitely keeping count this year) but they had been spread out over the first seven weeks since move-in week. But we had not had one since September 20th, and after three fire alarm-free weeks, you start feeling a little jumpy. I started suspecting something was going to happen day or two before it happened.
So when the first fire alarm went off, I was not surprised. I was sort of expecting it. I grabbed my hoodie (it was in the mid-50s, locked my door behind me (just my paranoia of people stealing my stuff; a locked wooden door is not going to do a good job at stopping a fire), started chatting up my friend who lived across from me, headed to the end of the hall, went down the stairs and out the building. My friend has not lived in the dorm before, so I keep having to reinforce the fact that we have a ludicrous amount of fire alarms.
Once outside, a few of us gathered around and started chatting to pass the time. What did we talk about? I do not remember. Probably TV commercials, having class in the morning (a few unlucky souls had 8 a.m. classes), the ridiculousness of fire alarms at the dorm, homework that got interrupted, etc. Then we were allowed back in, but only after being reminded to stay 25 feet away from the clearly-not-burning building.
Some people went back to bed, some back to their homework. I, having remembered last year's two-alarm night, elected to wait until after an hour had passed since the first alarm went off to go to bed, just to be safe. I actually started on homework, trying to kill time until I felt it was safe to go to bed without worrying about being awoken by a fire alarm. I ended up making a wise decision.
About an hour after we got back into the dorm, the second fire alarm of the night (and fifth on the year overall) went off. My reaction (sarcasm font needed): fantastic, absolutely fantastic. I greeted my friend across from me with an "I told you so" attitude, having previously warned him about the possibility of a two-fire alarm night. Other people on the floor we reacting with disbelief, with "are you kidding me?" looks. Someone even asked if we were even supposed to evacuate, or whether this whole thing was a joke.
So we all gathered around for a second time, some bemoaning how they had gone to bed and others still had homework to do (the homework I started on was not actually due the next day so I was not real upset). Once again, we stayed 25 feet away from the invisible, flameless, non-existent fire that was raging in my dorm. Then we got the OK to re-enter the building, but before we could even finish climbing the stairs up to our floor, a third fire alarm went off. Clearly someone felt we did not get enough exercise or social interaction.
Wash, rinse, repeat. Back outside, some more talking and moaning (not the good kind), and then back into the building. I ended up finishing the homework and going to bed sometime after 3 a.m. That was definitely playing it safe. The prospect of four fire alarm did not and does not seem out of the question. I thought two could not be eclipsed. But then it happened. Surely three could not be eclipsed either. But it is still early in the year so there is plenty of time to be proven wrong. But I hope not to be.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
So what happens when the fire alarm goes off?
- The alarm goes off; it is not too loud but you quickly find it obnoxious
- Note: try not to be in the shower or on the toilet when the alarm goes off; being "preoccupied" or giving a "private tutoring session" also sucks, but at least you have an awesome story to tell (and hopefully you have something to look forward to after the fire drill is over)
- You head down to the end of the hall, go down the stairs and out the building
- You need to be at least 25 feet away (because clearly the lack of fire is extremely dangerous)
- If there were a real fire, I think we would know to RUN THE HELL AWAY FROM THE BUILDING BECAUSE OMGHOLYSHIT IT'S ON FIRE!!!
- Then you stand outside for about 15 minutes until an RA gives the OK to re-enter the building
- Hopefully you have friends, otherwise you end up standing by yourself, alone, abandoned, ignored, overlooked
- Make fun of people who were taking a shower or took forever to exit the building ("I'm sorry but you didn't make it out in time. You're dead. Do not pass Go, do not collect two hundred dollars.")
- Once the RA gives the OK to re-enter the building, yup you guessed it, you re-enter the building
- Then you go back to whatever it was you were doing
Then we got the OK and went back to our rooms. My roommate and I decided to go bed because there was no way another alarm would go off, right? Wrong. Exactly an hour after the first alarm went off, a second one came along and decided it did not want us to get any sleep. But on the plus side, Banjo Guy was back And, as bonus, a guy with a mandolin also showed up. So we had a second singalong.
Fortunately, that was the last fire alarm for the night. I also thought that a two-fire alarm night could not be topped. Even people who had lived in the dorm before last year had never experienced a two-fire alarm night. So there was no possible way a three-fire alarm night could ever happen. Ever. Until it did.
Believe it or not, my dorm had a three-fire alarm night. And I was lucky enough to witness it. We have already had three fire alarms before that night (I am definitely keeping count this year) but they had been spread out over the first seven weeks since move-in week. But we had not had one since September 20th, and after three fire alarm-free weeks, you start feeling a little jumpy. I started suspecting something was going to happen day or two before it happened.
So when the first fire alarm went off, I was not surprised. I was sort of expecting it. I grabbed my hoodie (it was in the mid-50s, locked my door behind me (just my paranoia of people stealing my stuff; a locked wooden door is not going to do a good job at stopping a fire), started chatting up my friend who lived across from me, headed to the end of the hall, went down the stairs and out the building. My friend has not lived in the dorm before, so I keep having to reinforce the fact that we have a ludicrous amount of fire alarms.
Once outside, a few of us gathered around and started chatting to pass the time. What did we talk about? I do not remember. Probably TV commercials, having class in the morning (a few unlucky souls had 8 a.m. classes), the ridiculousness of fire alarms at the dorm, homework that got interrupted, etc. Then we were allowed back in, but only after being reminded to stay 25 feet away from the clearly-not-burning building.
Some people went back to bed, some back to their homework. I, having remembered last year's two-alarm night, elected to wait until after an hour had passed since the first alarm went off to go to bed, just to be safe. I actually started on homework, trying to kill time until I felt it was safe to go to bed without worrying about being awoken by a fire alarm. I ended up making a wise decision.
About an hour after we got back into the dorm, the second fire alarm of the night (and fifth on the year overall) went off. My reaction (sarcasm font needed): fantastic, absolutely fantastic. I greeted my friend across from me with an "I told you so" attitude, having previously warned him about the possibility of a two-fire alarm night. Other people on the floor we reacting with disbelief, with "are you kidding me?" looks. Someone even asked if we were even supposed to evacuate, or whether this whole thing was a joke.
So we all gathered around for a second time, some bemoaning how they had gone to bed and others still had homework to do (the homework I started on was not actually due the next day so I was not real upset). Once again, we stayed 25 feet away from the invisible, flameless, non-existent fire that was raging in my dorm. Then we got the OK to re-enter the building, but before we could even finish climbing the stairs up to our floor, a third fire alarm went off. Clearly someone felt we did not get enough exercise or social interaction.
Wash, rinse, repeat. Back outside, some more talking and moaning (not the good kind), and then back into the building. I ended up finishing the homework and going to bed sometime after 3 a.m. That was definitely playing it safe. The prospect of four fire alarm did not and does not seem out of the question. I thought two could not be eclipsed. But then it happened. Surely three could not be eclipsed either. But it is still early in the year so there is plenty of time to be proven wrong. But I hope not to be.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Karl Rove Said Something Stupid (As Usual)
Just a quick hit:
Apparently Karl Rove believes President Barack Obama has an enemies list. Now let me see how many jokes I can make with that:
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Apparently Karl Rove believes President Barack Obama has an enemies list. Now let me see how many jokes I can make with that:
- If there is anyone who knows about having enemies lists, it would be Karl Rove
- *Cough* Valerie Plame *Cough*
- Or was Valerie Plame classified as something other than "enemy" and thus TOTALLY different?
- I guess fired US attorneys also do not count as enemies?
- George Bush did not have an enemies list because he was illiterate
- You have to believe that pretzels made the list after they tried to assassinate George Bush
- Maybe that is why we never caught Osama bin Laden We were not sure who to catch. If only there was some sort list of our enemies...
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Robert Gibbs Was Right
Remember a few months ago when Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a comment about there being a professional left? After he said that, he came under some pretty heavy fire. He and the White House took a good deal of criticism from the comment. Well, he is right. There is a professional left, and it is causing problems.
Over the past several months, dating back to President Obama's first year in office, there has been a constant presence of this professional left. And it has not been helping Obama or the Democrats in congress. They have become an even larger problem during the 2010 campaign season, and they need to calm down.
The biggest problem that they are responsible for is their refusal to recognize all the goals President Obama has accomplished since taking office. Rather than support everything the president and congress has passed since January 20th, 2009, they have instead criticized Obama and the Democrats for not doing enough.
Here is a list of just some of the things they have accomplished:
Change through the American political process comes slowly. The Democratic base has to understand that grand, sweeping legislation does not come through and pass every day. Change often happens bit by bit, piece by piece. Think about how long it took for some form of health care reform to finally pass. The last major piece of health care reform legislation that was passed took place in the 1970s. Let us celebrate the fact that we finally got some legislation passed, even if it was not perfect.
Health care reform is just one example of what the professional left is unhappy about. The financial reform that passed, while not great, was a step in the right direction. We are fighting one less war. Taxes have been lowered for most people. One would think that President Obama has had a rather successful year and a half in office. And yet there is still a feeling amongst liberals that he has not done enough.
Yes, the economy is still poor, but the situation would be quite a lot worse if it were not for what steps the Obama administration took. He could also do more for gay rights, such as taking a greater role in the process of repealing DADT. He has, for the most part, continued the Bush policies of how to deal with terror suspects and detainees.
But he has got the country moving in the right direction. So why are liberals still unhappy with Obama's performance? I think the answer is two-fold: high unemployment is generating a feeling that not enough is being done in Washington and it is representative of how Washington often appears stagnant towards people's needs, and also that liberals need to realize that they are expecting too much out of what the president can do.
And then there is the media, but that is a whole other matter. There is so much misinformation out there that it can be hard for people to get the correct story and what is really going on in Washington. Sadly, there is no way to remedy this situation unless the various news outlets (either on TV, in print or online) actually begin to tell the news in an honest fashion (except, of course, for The Daily Show).
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Over the past several months, dating back to President Obama's first year in office, there has been a constant presence of this professional left. And it has not been helping Obama or the Democrats in congress. They have become an even larger problem during the 2010 campaign season, and they need to calm down.
The biggest problem that they are responsible for is their refusal to recognize all the goals President Obama has accomplished since taking office. Rather than support everything the president and congress has passed since January 20th, 2009, they have instead criticized Obama and the Democrats for not doing enough.
Here is a list of just some of the things they have accomplished:
- Health care reform
- Financial reform
- Prevented a 2nd depression
- Lowered taxes for 95% of Americans
- Restarted stem cell research
- Pulled out of Iraq
- Signed a nuclear treaty with Russia
Change through the American political process comes slowly. The Democratic base has to understand that grand, sweeping legislation does not come through and pass every day. Change often happens bit by bit, piece by piece. Think about how long it took for some form of health care reform to finally pass. The last major piece of health care reform legislation that was passed took place in the 1970s. Let us celebrate the fact that we finally got some legislation passed, even if it was not perfect.
Health care reform is just one example of what the professional left is unhappy about. The financial reform that passed, while not great, was a step in the right direction. We are fighting one less war. Taxes have been lowered for most people. One would think that President Obama has had a rather successful year and a half in office. And yet there is still a feeling amongst liberals that he has not done enough.
Yes, the economy is still poor, but the situation would be quite a lot worse if it were not for what steps the Obama administration took. He could also do more for gay rights, such as taking a greater role in the process of repealing DADT. He has, for the most part, continued the Bush policies of how to deal with terror suspects and detainees.
But he has got the country moving in the right direction. So why are liberals still unhappy with Obama's performance? I think the answer is two-fold: high unemployment is generating a feeling that not enough is being done in Washington and it is representative of how Washington often appears stagnant towards people's needs, and also that liberals need to realize that they are expecting too much out of what the president can do.
And then there is the media, but that is a whole other matter. There is so much misinformation out there that it can be hard for people to get the correct story and what is really going on in Washington. Sadly, there is no way to remedy this situation unless the various news outlets (either on TV, in print or online) actually begin to tell the news in an honest fashion (except, of course, for The Daily Show).
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Friday, October 1, 2010
Rick Sanchez Is Not Smart
I cannot believe I once thought Rick Sanchez was a good journalist. I am embarrassed to admit I actually thought he was doing a good job as a reporter for CNN. Fortunately I have seen the errors of my ways and now realize just how terrible Rick Sanchez was.
Where to begin? Well, there is pretty much everything he has ever done for CNN. He spent half his show reading tweets from his followers. Why is that a problem? Reading peoples' tweets is not news. I could care less about someone's opinion that is written in 140 characters or less. I could really care less about someone's opinion especially when it is on something they have no idea about or are not well informed about, such as a breaking news event.
Rick Sanchez's brilliance also extends to his utter lack of intelligence. Remember that Icelandic volcano that caused a lot of travel problems during the summer? Rick Sanchez was blown away by the fact that Iceland has a volcano. His logic was as follows: Iceland is cold, volcanoes are hot, therefore Iceland should not have volcanoes.
And then of course there is that radio interview that got him fired. Apparently Jon Stewart is a bigot and the Jews control the media, including CNN. Sometimes I think Rick Sanchez has no idea what he is saying. First of all, Jon Stewart is the best news anchor on television. If you have been watching The Daily Show for the past year, you know just how informed Jon Stewart is. And if you have not been watching, you should be.
Nor is Stewart "prejudicial," as Sanchez also labeled him. Stewart has been critical of both Democrats and Republicans, CNN, FOX News and MSNBC. And I do not think I need to discuss Sanchez's comments about Jews in the media or sarcastically calling them an oppressed minority. It is pretty self-evident Sanchez is the bigot here.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Where to begin? Well, there is pretty much everything he has ever done for CNN. He spent half his show reading tweets from his followers. Why is that a problem? Reading peoples' tweets is not news. I could care less about someone's opinion that is written in 140 characters or less. I could really care less about someone's opinion especially when it is on something they have no idea about or are not well informed about, such as a breaking news event.
Rick Sanchez's brilliance also extends to his utter lack of intelligence. Remember that Icelandic volcano that caused a lot of travel problems during the summer? Rick Sanchez was blown away by the fact that Iceland has a volcano. His logic was as follows: Iceland is cold, volcanoes are hot, therefore Iceland should not have volcanoes.
And then of course there is that radio interview that got him fired. Apparently Jon Stewart is a bigot and the Jews control the media, including CNN. Sometimes I think Rick Sanchez has no idea what he is saying. First of all, Jon Stewart is the best news anchor on television. If you have been watching The Daily Show for the past year, you know just how informed Jon Stewart is. And if you have not been watching, you should be.
Nor is Stewart "prejudicial," as Sanchez also labeled him. Stewart has been critical of both Democrats and Republicans, CNN, FOX News and MSNBC. And I do not think I need to discuss Sanchez's comments about Jews in the media or sarcastically calling them an oppressed minority. It is pretty self-evident Sanchez is the bigot here.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
How To Please The Football Gods
Either the football gods exist, or I am psychic. Or both. Either way, I am going to gloat about correctly predicting a Green Bay turnover against the Bears Monday night. Don't believe me? Well check this out: http://twitter.com/ChiGuy1991/status/25751460844. This was about five minutes before Tim Jennings recovered a James Jones fumble forced by Brian Urlacher.
What was the offering? I put a football under a Bears hat and placed it on my pillow. And the incense? I momentarily lit a lighter. And just like that, I pleased the football gods enough to have them grant my wish.
Fun fact: That hat is the same hat in the picture above and where the name of this blog is derived. There's something special about that hat.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
What was the offering? I put a football under a Bears hat and placed it on my pillow. And the incense? I momentarily lit a lighter. And just like that, I pleased the football gods enough to have them grant my wish.
Fun fact: That hat is the same hat in the picture above and where the name of this blog is derived. There's something special about that hat.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Friday, September 24, 2010
Brother Jed
Have you heard the good news? Brother Jed has. But who is Brother Jed? Brother Jed is a Methodist preacher who visits college campuses nationwide and tries to convince college students to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior. He returned to Indiana University Bloomington, something he has done almost every year for over a decade, this week and I took the opportunity to listen to what he had to say.
Here are some highlights:
But at the same time, he refers to gay people as "homos," mocks their sexual orientation as nothing more than a fascination with sex organs, rejects the possibility that he may be wrong and rejects the idea that God and Allah are the same (he does not believe Islam is a continuation of the Judeo-Chrisitian faith).
Does Brother Jed have the right to say these things? Yes, of course he does, and I will defend his right to say them. But his message is wrong. And just because his message is wrong does not mean people should act the way they do towards him. While some remained civil, others shouted profanities, got all up in the face of his 19 year old daughter with profanities and middle fingers and stole his chair.
Regardless of your opinions and views, there is no reason to act this way. Respect your fellow man. I believe Brother Jed is homophobic and intolerant, but rather than treat him rudely, I treated him with courtesy and respect. You do not make yourself look better than him by treating him in a disrespectful manner. Counter his intolerance with your own tolerance.
I'd like to finish with the words of John Lennon:
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Here are some highlights:
- Humans are not animals, and thus evolution does not concern them.
- God can perform miracles such as restoring a woman's virginity by physically restoring the hymen. (Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlb6XHewNfg)
- Using marijuana for medicinal purposes is ok, but using it and other drugs for recreational benefits constitutes a sin.
- Likewise, drinking in moderation is ok. But going out and getting drunk is an abuse of alcohol and therefore a sin.
- Is a self-anointed expert on human sexuality. Explains why anal sex is a sin. (Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqR5fv43yis)
- Would disown his daughter is she admitted she was a lesbian.
- Adam discovered that Eve didn't have a banana-like thing in between her legs.
- Carries a staff with a crucifix attached to the top. The staff itself represents Moses and the Old Testament and the crucifix represents Jesus and the New Testament.
- Some parts of the Bible obviously cannot be taken literally and cannot be applied to society today. But other parts you can.
- Never answered the repeated question of which version of the Bible he uses.
- Presumed nearly all college students drink, use recreational drugs, have sex and dishonor their parents by wasting their payed-for education on partying.
But at the same time, he refers to gay people as "homos," mocks their sexual orientation as nothing more than a fascination with sex organs, rejects the possibility that he may be wrong and rejects the idea that God and Allah are the same (he does not believe Islam is a continuation of the Judeo-Chrisitian faith).
Does Brother Jed have the right to say these things? Yes, of course he does, and I will defend his right to say them. But his message is wrong. And just because his message is wrong does not mean people should act the way they do towards him. While some remained civil, others shouted profanities, got all up in the face of his 19 year old daughter with profanities and middle fingers and stole his chair.
Regardless of your opinions and views, there is no reason to act this way. Respect your fellow man. I believe Brother Jed is homophobic and intolerant, but rather than treat him rudely, I treated him with courtesy and respect. You do not make yourself look better than him by treating him in a disrespectful manner. Counter his intolerance with your own tolerance.
I'd like to finish with the words of John Lennon:
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Bud Selig Is An Idiot (Again)
If you are a big baseball fan like I am, you probably have a deep-seeded hatred for Bud Selig, the commissioner of Major League Baseball. While the laundry list of problems for Selig is quite long, I want to focus on a recent episode involving Cubs player Tyler Colvin.
On Sunday, Colvin was hit in the chest by the remnants of a broken bat as he was heading home from third. A large, sharp piece of the bat hit him squarely in the chest, and was inches away from puncturing either his heart or his neck. Remarkably, Colvin got away relatively unscathed and was able to score before being removed from the game.
Colvin was then taken to the hospital and treated to prevent him from suffering a collapsed lung. He will now miss the final few weeks of the season but should otherwise be fine. But just because he got lucky does not mean there is not a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
Maple bats, such as the one that broke and speared Colvin, are known for shattering in large pieces. It is remarkable that there have not been more dangerous injuries related to the use of maple bats. When the bats break, there are usually a few large, sharp and pointed pieces that go flying in a bevy of directions: at baserunners, fielders, players in the dugouts, and into the stands.
This problem needs to be addressed before someone gets seriously injured. But judging from the reaction by Bud Selig, it looks like a major accident is what it is going to take to get much-needed changes. Selig commented on the Colvin incident, "It scared me. But we've been very vigorous in attacking the problem and will continue to be."
Here is the problem though: Selig did not address how the problem will be solved. He pointed to statistics showing that the number of broken maple bats have gone down over the last 2 years. And yet Colvin still got impaled one. Though there may be fewer broken bats, there is still a significant risk of injury.
A few years ago a minor league first base coach got struck by a foul ball and died. The next season Major League Baseball mandated that all base coaches wear helmets to protect themselves. This is a similar situation. If Colvin had gotten seriously injured (or worse), I am sure we would see swift action taken by Bud Selig to eliminate maple bats.
Unfortunately, Bud Selig is a terrible commissioner. He is not going to do anything about maple bats until it is too late. And that is typical Bud Selig: do nothing to stop a problem until it has gotten to a point where it is out of control and then step in. He took the same approach to eliminating steroids and nearly did irreparable harm to the game.
I hope he does the right thing, but I doubt he will. I am eagerly awaiting the day Bud Selig is no longer the commissioner of Major League Baseball.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
On Sunday, Colvin was hit in the chest by the remnants of a broken bat as he was heading home from third. A large, sharp piece of the bat hit him squarely in the chest, and was inches away from puncturing either his heart or his neck. Remarkably, Colvin got away relatively unscathed and was able to score before being removed from the game.
Colvin was then taken to the hospital and treated to prevent him from suffering a collapsed lung. He will now miss the final few weeks of the season but should otherwise be fine. But just because he got lucky does not mean there is not a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
Maple bats, such as the one that broke and speared Colvin, are known for shattering in large pieces. It is remarkable that there have not been more dangerous injuries related to the use of maple bats. When the bats break, there are usually a few large, sharp and pointed pieces that go flying in a bevy of directions: at baserunners, fielders, players in the dugouts, and into the stands.
This problem needs to be addressed before someone gets seriously injured. But judging from the reaction by Bud Selig, it looks like a major accident is what it is going to take to get much-needed changes. Selig commented on the Colvin incident, "It scared me. But we've been very vigorous in attacking the problem and will continue to be."
Here is the problem though: Selig did not address how the problem will be solved. He pointed to statistics showing that the number of broken maple bats have gone down over the last 2 years. And yet Colvin still got impaled one. Though there may be fewer broken bats, there is still a significant risk of injury.
A few years ago a minor league first base coach got struck by a foul ball and died. The next season Major League Baseball mandated that all base coaches wear helmets to protect themselves. This is a similar situation. If Colvin had gotten seriously injured (or worse), I am sure we would see swift action taken by Bud Selig to eliminate maple bats.
Unfortunately, Bud Selig is a terrible commissioner. He is not going to do anything about maple bats until it is too late. And that is typical Bud Selig: do nothing to stop a problem until it has gotten to a point where it is out of control and then step in. He took the same approach to eliminating steroids and nearly did irreparable harm to the game.
I hope he does the right thing, but I doubt he will. I am eagerly awaiting the day Bud Selig is no longer the commissioner of Major League Baseball.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)