2008/R/Drama
Recount is the dramatization (based on actual events) of the fight for Florida during the 2000 Presidential Election between Bush and Gore. **Spoiler Alert** Al Gore looses. This movie, produced by HBOFilms, stars Kevin Spacey, Dennis Leary, Ed Begly Jr., Tom Wilkinson, and Mitch Pileggi. If the mere fact that this movie was made didn't communicate it, the fact that it's HBOFilms starring these people made it more than apparent prior to viewing that this movie would lean left.
Recount was everything I thought it would be an nothing I'd hoped it would be. Lean left? Yeah, if you can call a boat that's capsized "leaning." While I expected a bias, the extent to which the filmmakers went was surprising. What I found was had the bias been less exaggerated, I might have been more receptive to some of their talking points.
How bad was the bias? I'll list just a few comparisons in regards to how the portrayed the competing sides:
The Candidates:
While neither Senator Gore nor Governor Bush was fully portrayed, they were represented throughout the movie. Gore was in charge of the legal proceedings that his team of lawyers was pursuing. He was compassionate, concerned with the American people and his image. Bush was absent. His team was run by the head lawyer. Gore's people were on the phone to him repeatedly. No one ever checked with Bush regarding the actions they were taking. The only time we heard Bush was when he was snooty to Gore on the phone. We hear Gore several times leading and directing his troops.
The Lawyers:
There are several ways the director and writers chose to expose their bias through these characters. There is a very telling scene that bounces between the two camps as the set their strategy when it first appeared that Florida was going to become a post-election battleground. The Democrats would say something that sounded gentle and altruistic. They'd follow it up with a comment about something they certainly couldn't do on moral or ethical grounds. Cut to: The Republican lawyers proclaiming they needed to do the exact verbatim thing the liberal lawyers just said they could never do. This was done not once, not even twice, at least three times throughout the course of the movie. While it garnered a laugh, even from me, it moved this piece from fictional retelling to melodrama.
The Design:
I debated which heading to use for this section. "Design" encompasses lighting, costumes, and set. The lawyers for the two sides were purposefully portrayed as polar opposites. The democrats were in business casual: respectable yet approachable. The republicans were in business suits: stuffy, stodgy, rich. Gore's team was headquartered in a comfortable, brightly lit, campaign-style storefront filled with big windows, folding chairs, campaign signs, and folding tables. The Bush team was in a dark, enclosed conference room filled with heavy law books, heavy curtains, and a big heavy table. The Liberals were lit warmly, attractively, comfortably with key lights and fill lights. The conservatives were consistently back lit with a single harsh cold light.
There was a moment when they almost made the Republicans appear to be human. However, when juxtaposed with some of the things the Democrats said, even that was slanted. A fellow lawyer asked the Chief Republican attorney why he switched parties, as he was once a Democrat. The man replied that at a difficult time in his life, a politician was very kind and understanding: G. Bush I. "Oh, how sweet." Right? Consider this: Following their loss, a few of the Democrats were saying that they didn't even like Al Gore. What am I getting at? The Democrats are doing what they are doing because the believe in the party and it's platforms. The only reason the lawyer was a Republican was due to friendship. No intelligent person would ever be a Republican based on the party platforms (unless you are rich.) Even in their "pet the dog*" moment, they still bashed the right.
In the end, some of the Democrats are sitting around opining that hopefully, the right man was in office, even if it wasn't their guy. While they are discussing this little hints are being dropped: Brown appointed as FEMA chair on a newspaper, Iraq mentioned in a broadcast. They don't go so far as to drop any foreshadowing of 9/11, but their feelings on the overall situation is clear (as though we needed to be reminded how the makers of the movie truly felt...)
We all remember the questions surrounding the Florida election of 2000. In my extensive studies on the counts and recounts I still cannot say for certain who won the state. The filmmakers certainly had a very compelling story with valid points on both sides. The fact that they couldn't simply tell the story and felt they need to spin it (more than spin it: catapult it) to the left negated any points either side had. Basically, the inability of the writers, director, and producers to suppress their own political viewpoints made this movie a waste of time.
The message of the movie is unmistakable. So, even though it was completely counter productive, they were successful in communicating their purpose. They get a half star for that. The acting, constrained as it was by the script and overall bias, was fairly decent. One star for that.
Overall 1.5 out of 5 stars.
* A "pet the dog" moment is when you have your stereotypical villain pet a dog, or do something else humane, to show that he isn't all evil. A good example of this would be when Nicholas Cage's character cares for his brother in Face/Off. This ability to care shows he's somewhat human.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Once, Twice, Three Years a Daddy
Today Full House turns three.
THREE!
I cannot believe that so much time has passed.
I don't often take time to express fatherhood thoughts. I'd like to take a few minutes to do so now.
I love learning about my son. I love finding out what he likes and dislikes. What he thinks is funny. How he likes to spend his time. What excites him. What he has learned that we intentionally taught him and what he's learned that we did not intentionally teach him. I love his disposition, his intelligence, his athletic ability, his personality. I can't wait to see how our relationship will grow as he does (Well, I don't want him to be grown tomorrow!) I love my son.
I've learned that parenthood is backwards from any other relationship. Consider the majority of other types of relatioships: friendships, marriages, parents, colleagues. Let's assume that every interaction I have with them is positive. We express mutual respect. We compliment each other. In most of our interactions we are positive. In those relationships, if something cutting, negative, or biting is said, it almost completely wipes out all of the positive and good that has happened before. With parenthood, one could have a brat. One's child could be the worst, most disrespectful kid on the block. This parent could have the most infuriating frustrating child and have all of that angst and stress pent up as they are trying to get this hypothetical child to go to sleep. And this child calls them in for the 8 thousandth time to his room and says, "Daddy, I love you." And everything else goes away! Nothing else matters. Suddenly, said child is an angel. Full House is an amazing little boy. I honestly wonder why I was blessed with such a fantastic kid. This is not a commentary on him in the slightest. Simply that, there are times when I, as a father, usually unwarranted, get frustrated with him. He says something sweet, innocent, brilliant, funny, whatever... it all melts away. This would never happen in any other relationship.
I don't like the term "Father." I learned this fact when I was playing with Full House in a public place and an older gentleman asked him, "Do you like playing with your father?" "Whoa," I thought, "I'm his Dad." I had a visceral emotional reaction to the moniker "father." I am blessed to be Full House's (and Wild Card's) dad.
I'm trying to be intentional as his dad. We have a game plan before we play football. We story board before we shoot a film. We prepare for an interview. Why don't we have a plan for parenthood. I call him "Little Man" to remind myself that it's my job to raise him to be a Godly man. I'm intentionally laying a foundation on which I can build as he grows older to instill in him habits that I never had. Prayer. Reading the Word. Studying the Word. Modeling the proper servanthood leadership in the home. Displaying how to love and respect a woman. I don't want to fly by the seat of my pants. I want a game plan. Hopefully it will get even better as I grow in experience as a dad.
So, my little man, my buddy: Happy Birthday. Thank you for three years of laughs, smiles, games, insight, surprises, and love.
I love you, buddy!
I cannot believe that so much time has passed.
I don't often take time to express fatherhood thoughts. I'd like to take a few minutes to do so now.
I love learning about my son. I love finding out what he likes and dislikes. What he thinks is funny. How he likes to spend his time. What excites him. What he has learned that we intentionally taught him and what he's learned that we did not intentionally teach him. I love his disposition, his intelligence, his athletic ability, his personality. I can't wait to see how our relationship will grow as he does (Well, I don't want him to be grown tomorrow!) I love my son.
I've learned that parenthood is backwards from any other relationship. Consider the majority of other types of relatioships: friendships, marriages, parents, colleagues. Let's assume that every interaction I have with them is positive. We express mutual respect. We compliment each other. In most of our interactions we are positive. In those relationships, if something cutting, negative, or biting is said, it almost completely wipes out all of the positive and good that has happened before. With parenthood, one could have a brat. One's child could be the worst, most disrespectful kid on the block. This parent could have the most infuriating frustrating child and have all of that angst and stress pent up as they are trying to get this hypothetical child to go to sleep. And this child calls them in for the 8 thousandth time to his room and says, "Daddy, I love you." And everything else goes away! Nothing else matters. Suddenly, said child is an angel. Full House is an amazing little boy. I honestly wonder why I was blessed with such a fantastic kid. This is not a commentary on him in the slightest. Simply that, there are times when I, as a father, usually unwarranted, get frustrated with him. He says something sweet, innocent, brilliant, funny, whatever... it all melts away. This would never happen in any other relationship.
I don't like the term "Father." I learned this fact when I was playing with Full House in a public place and an older gentleman asked him, "Do you like playing with your father?" "Whoa," I thought, "I'm his Dad." I had a visceral emotional reaction to the moniker "father." I am blessed to be Full House's (and Wild Card's) dad.
I'm trying to be intentional as his dad. We have a game plan before we play football. We story board before we shoot a film. We prepare for an interview. Why don't we have a plan for parenthood. I call him "Little Man" to remind myself that it's my job to raise him to be a Godly man. I'm intentionally laying a foundation on which I can build as he grows older to instill in him habits that I never had. Prayer. Reading the Word. Studying the Word. Modeling the proper servanthood leadership in the home. Displaying how to love and respect a woman. I don't want to fly by the seat of my pants. I want a game plan. Hopefully it will get even better as I grow in experience as a dad.
So, my little man, my buddy: Happy Birthday. Thank you for three years of laughs, smiles, games, insight, surprises, and love.
I love you, buddy!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Father's Day
I was running around my yard with my son hoping that my love and attention would help him grow into a man that I, my wife, and even he, would be proud of.
In the midst of this I had a thought: Who would I have been if I had a father who wanted to be a Dad? I've always said and known that I am a better man because my father left. I wouldn't be half the man I am if I'd had his example of what it meant to be a husband or a father. God obviously placed specific men in my life at specific times to shape me into the man I am today. For that I am inexpressibly grateful!
But still, sometimes I wonder...
In the midst of this I had a thought: Who would I have been if I had a father who wanted to be a Dad? I've always said and known that I am a better man because my father left. I wouldn't be half the man I am if I'd had his example of what it meant to be a husband or a father. God obviously placed specific men in my life at specific times to shape me into the man I am today. For that I am inexpressibly grateful!
But still, sometimes I wonder...
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Seeing Stars
No, this isn't a post about my years in Hollywood. And I haven't seen a cartoon character take a mallet to the head recently. I'm talking about big gaseous balls of fire in the heavens.
I've had a few encounters with stars within the past few days. The story of Abraham and the promise that his descendants would outnumber the stars. I read a Shakespearean sonnet that referenced them. And I'm watching a BBC program called Hyperspace, billed as covering "From the beginning of the universe to the end of our world" and these have gotten me thinking...
When I read the story of Abraham, I'm never really impressed that his descendants will out number the stars - out numbering the sands astounds me - but not so much the stars. And Shakespeare talks about the number and beauty of them... ehh. Don't get me wrong, they are amazing and I love gazing at them, but... And then I remember:
We do not see the same stars they did!
I'm not saying that the stars themselves are different, but our planet has gotten so visually loud that we see so many fewer stars than they did. Consider this:
This is basically what we see now:
Imagine seeing this:
I was driving across Wyoming (not many people can start a sentence that way!), it was night, the highway was empty (anyone surprised?), the land was so flat I could see the horizon as though I was at sea. Wyoming doesn't believe in streetlights. I had a realization. I pulled my car over, turned off the lights, climbed up on the hood, leaned back on the windshield and marvelled! Suddenly I understood the promise to Abraham. I saw the majesty Shakespeare attempted to capture in words. I'd never seen the night sky so filled with stars.
Which brings me to my other thought: Hyperspace has been using some fairly ironic words. Obviously this BBC production isn't acknowledging the existence of God and yet they are using such words as "creation" and talking about things being "brought into existence."
The first episode mentions "the beginning of time" and takes us back to the Big Bang. Of course, most of us know that scientists generally agree that time existed before the Big Bang, we just have no way of knowing what was there. That was just something that made me go "huh?"
Anyway, the episode talks about how everything that is was "created" by stars. The only element that existed during the Big Bang was hydrogen, that became stars that became denser and created helium, oxygen, calcium, etc all the way to lead as the star died. Dying stars spewed their "star stuff" that became planets and the super nova-ing stars created black holes. All I could picture is God watching this thinking, "I know! Isn't is so stinking cool?! Doesn't it just blow your mind what I came up with! I'm so proud of you that you figured it all out. I love this stuff too!"
To bring this post together, Hyperspace gave a statistic: For every grain of sand on earth there are 1 million stars in the universe. I guess I need to swap which promise to Abraham amazes me!
I will continue to be astonished by the beauty and creativity of the stars.
I've had a few encounters with stars within the past few days. The story of Abraham and the promise that his descendants would outnumber the stars. I read a Shakespearean sonnet that referenced them. And I'm watching a BBC program called Hyperspace, billed as covering "From the beginning of the universe to the end of our world" and these have gotten me thinking...
When I read the story of Abraham, I'm never really impressed that his descendants will out number the stars - out numbering the sands astounds me - but not so much the stars. And Shakespeare talks about the number and beauty of them... ehh. Don't get me wrong, they are amazing and I love gazing at them, but... And then I remember:
I'm not saying that the stars themselves are different, but our planet has gotten so visually loud that we see so many fewer stars than they did. Consider this:
This is basically what we see now:
Imagine seeing this:
I was driving across Wyoming (not many people can start a sentence that way!), it was night, the highway was empty (anyone surprised?), the land was so flat I could see the horizon as though I was at sea. Wyoming doesn't believe in streetlights. I had a realization. I pulled my car over, turned off the lights, climbed up on the hood, leaned back on the windshield and marvelled! Suddenly I understood the promise to Abraham. I saw the majesty Shakespeare attempted to capture in words. I'd never seen the night sky so filled with stars.
Which brings me to my other thought: Hyperspace has been using some fairly ironic words. Obviously this BBC production isn't acknowledging the existence of God and yet they are using such words as "creation" and talking about things being "brought into existence."
The first episode mentions "the beginning of time" and takes us back to the Big Bang. Of course, most of us know that scientists generally agree that time existed before the Big Bang, we just have no way of knowing what was there. That was just something that made me go "huh?"
Anyway, the episode talks about how everything that is was "created" by stars. The only element that existed during the Big Bang was hydrogen, that became stars that became denser and created helium, oxygen, calcium, etc all the way to lead as the star died. Dying stars spewed their "star stuff" that became planets and the super nova-ing stars created black holes. All I could picture is God watching this thinking, "I know! Isn't is so stinking cool?! Doesn't it just blow your mind what I came up with! I'm so proud of you that you figured it all out. I love this stuff too!"
To bring this post together, Hyperspace gave a statistic: For every grain of sand on earth there are 1 million stars in the universe. I guess I need to swap which promise to Abraham amazes me!
I will continue to be astonished by the beauty and creativity of the stars.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
International Politics
I think it's a rare event that JMO delves into the realm of international politics, but there are two issues that have burst onto the scene of current events on which JMO has an opinion. (Surprise, surprise, right?)
Newsline: North Korea
Two American Journalists entered North Korea illegally as they covered a story regarding North Korean refugees fleeing to China, the country they entered from. They were arrested in March and only just recently were sentenced to twelve years hard labor. The Obama administration is very concerned regarding this verdict.
I have three thoughts on this situation. First, honestly, twelve years is getting off easy. Let's consider the other possibilities. If I'm North Korea, I'm arresting your for espionage. You are in our country illegally, you are from a country with which relations are currently strained and you have recording devices. Espionage equals death. Twelve years vs death? I'll take the twelve years.
Second, what were these journalists thinking? North Korea won't care? They'll be treated with leniency because they are women? Nothing like giving ammunition to the enemy of your country. If nothing else, these two journalists are now bargaining chips for the North Koreans with the US government regarding their nuclear program.
Third, the Obama administration has stated that they are very concerned with the terms of the sentence. This should come as no surprise to anyone! Of course the Obama administration is concerned. They don't care about people coming into this country illegally, why should other countries enforce their own laws?
Newsline: Iran
I was shocked to hear that Iran was holding elections! That lasted for about 4 seconds. Then I remembered that Iraq used to hold elections, too. It was the only country in the world where the President was elected having received 100% of the vote and where 100% of the vote was greater than the eligible voting population.
Therefore, I was even more surprised to hear that Ahmadinejad won by "a larger margin than expected." I expected it to be 100%. That means that in rigging the election, they actually allowed the other candidates to receive some of the votes! Looks like reform is coming to Iran. Maybe next time it will be a tie, and they will have a run off election before Mahmoud declares himself the winner.
So, that's my opinion. What's yours?
Newsline: North Korea
Two American Journalists entered North Korea illegally as they covered a story regarding North Korean refugees fleeing to China, the country they entered from. They were arrested in March and only just recently were sentenced to twelve years hard labor. The Obama administration is very concerned regarding this verdict.
I have three thoughts on this situation. First, honestly, twelve years is getting off easy. Let's consider the other possibilities. If I'm North Korea, I'm arresting your for espionage. You are in our country illegally, you are from a country with which relations are currently strained and you have recording devices. Espionage equals death. Twelve years vs death? I'll take the twelve years.
Second, what were these journalists thinking? North Korea won't care? They'll be treated with leniency because they are women? Nothing like giving ammunition to the enemy of your country. If nothing else, these two journalists are now bargaining chips for the North Koreans with the US government regarding their nuclear program.
Third, the Obama administration has stated that they are very concerned with the terms of the sentence. This should come as no surprise to anyone! Of course the Obama administration is concerned. They don't care about people coming into this country illegally, why should other countries enforce their own laws?
Newsline: Iran
I was shocked to hear that Iran was holding elections! That lasted for about 4 seconds. Then I remembered that Iraq used to hold elections, too. It was the only country in the world where the President was elected having received 100% of the vote and where 100% of the vote was greater than the eligible voting population.
Therefore, I was even more surprised to hear that Ahmadinejad won by "a larger margin than expected." I expected it to be 100%. That means that in rigging the election, they actually allowed the other candidates to receive some of the votes! Looks like reform is coming to Iran. Maybe next time it will be a tie, and they will have a run off election before Mahmoud declares himself the winner.
So, that's my opinion. What's yours?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Dismantling Food
Recently, I admitted to myself that I have a strange eating habit. I dismantle food (If this confuses you, you'll understand more as you read). I used to think this was localized only to one or two snacks. However, the more I reflected on this abnormality, the more I concluded that, when it comes to dismantling food, I practically do it whenever possible.
I first started to consider this issue when Reese ran their "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese" campaign.
How do I eat my Reese Peanut Butter Cups? I bite off the chocolate around the circumference of the cup. Then I see if I can get the chocolate off the top. Then I eat the peanut butter. I dismantle it - bit by bit.
Anyway. This all came to a head on Friday when I had a few different snacks in relative rapid succession.
I had a Pop Tart. (I bite the edges off, then try to slide apart the middle so I have the frosting and the filling on the top and bottom.)
I had some Combos. (I try to isolate the filling by biting off the pretzel or breading from around the outside. Then I pop the middle in my mouth)
I had some Kit Kats. (I bite off the ends and then I lift off each level of wafer with my teeth as I
devour the candy bar).
I stopped mid Kit Kat and realized that within five hours I'd dismantled four different foods! (I'd
already had a peanut butter cup). Then I thought about other foods:
Swiss Cake Rolls: I eat the chocolate coating off and then unroll it as I eat it.
Reese Sticks: I eat these the same way I eat Kit Kats, biting off one layer at a time.
Think it ends there? I wish! In fact, not only does it not end,it gets worse! I have trouble eating an Oreo without opening it and licking off the filling. I even try to nibble off the candy shell of Reese' Pieces and eat the peanut butter by itself!
Think that's crazy? While this one is not as consistent as all of the others, I've even been known to chew off the breading from Mozzarella Sticks if they've gotten a little cool and the cheese has congealed inside them!
Even as I wrote this I found I was realizing even more foods I do this to! (Don't worry, I added them as I went). But what does this bizarre eating habit say about me? Do I even want to know?! I may be opening Pandora's box but ... I am inviting you to offer your opinions on what this says about me, or what part of my personality you think is being reflected. Fire away!
(Ok, but I am not as bad as my college friend who used to rip off the "fry butts" and eat only the middles leaving a pile of amputated fry ends on her plate! ... Right?)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
And one other thing: Congratulations to the QofH for reaching the milestone of her first 100 posts on It's Called Guilt. If you haven't yet, be sure to check out her insightful blog on motherhood!
I first started to consider this issue when Reese ran their "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese" campaign.
How do I eat my Reese Peanut Butter Cups? I bite off the chocolate around the circumference of the cup. Then I see if I can get the chocolate off the top. Then I eat the peanut butter. I dismantle it - bit by bit.Anyway. This all came to a head on Friday when I had a few different snacks in relative rapid succession.
I had a Pop Tart. (I bite the edges off, then try to slide apart the middle so I have the frosting and the filling on the top and bottom.)
I had some Combos. (I try to isolate the filling by biting off the pretzel or breading from around the outside. Then I pop the middle in my mouth)I had some Kit Kats. (I bite off the ends and then I lift off each level of wafer with my teeth as I
devour the candy bar).I stopped mid Kit Kat and realized that within five hours I'd dismantled four different foods! (I'd
already had a peanut butter cup). Then I thought about other foods:Swiss Cake Rolls: I eat the chocolate coating off and then unroll it as I eat it.
Reese Sticks: I eat these the same way I eat Kit Kats, biting off one layer at a time.
Think it ends there? I wish! In fact, not only does it not end,it gets worse! I have trouble eating an Oreo without opening it and licking off the filling. I even try to nibble off the candy shell of Reese' Pieces and eat the peanut butter by itself!
Think that's crazy? While this one is not as consistent as all of the others, I've even been known to chew off the breading from Mozzarella Sticks if they've gotten a little cool and the cheese has congealed inside them!
Even as I wrote this I found I was realizing even more foods I do this to! (Don't worry, I added them as I went). But what does this bizarre eating habit say about me? Do I even want to know?! I may be opening Pandora's box but ... I am inviting you to offer your opinions on what this says about me, or what part of my personality you think is being reflected. Fire away!
(Ok, but I am not as bad as my college friend who used to rip off the "fry butts" and eat only the middles leaving a pile of amputated fry ends on her plate! ... Right?)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
And one other thing: Congratulations to the QofH for reaching the milestone of her first 100 posts on It's Called Guilt. If you haven't yet, be sure to check out her insightful blog on motherhood!
Friday, June 12, 2009
Review: Premonition
Seriously, I'm totally going to give the movie away
I'm not even kidding, if you want to watch the movie and be surprised, stop reading now
(But let me say this: it's really not worth skipping the review to watch the movie. If you have to pick one, pick the review)
2007/PG-13/Drama
Premonition is my movie. And when I say that, "my movie" is a movie that never got made, for good reason. I'll explain:
For my final project in film school, we had to pitch a movie idea to the producers (Professors). They'd select which five movies would be made out of the twelve that were presented. I pitched a movie called Photo Finish. The very short synopsis is: Due to the consequences of his own actions, fate gives a man a Polaroid Camera. The camera begins to lead him to strangers who, unbeknownst to him, are about to die. He takes their picture and when it develops it turns out to be a picture of their death, which is imminent. He decides to try to do good and the each time the camera leads him he tries to save the person's life. His actions end up causing their death, and when he does nothing, they still die. Finally, the camera leads our anti-hero to a mirror. He takes his own picture and sees how he will die moments before it happens. The movie ends with an apparition of our hero passing the camera off to the person who was responsible for his death, and they cycle continues.
This is the movie I pitched. The producers didn't like the fact that there was no redemption for the main character. They told me my movie would be made, but I had to rework it so that his actions saved people from their imminent demise. What the producer says goes and Photo Finish was made.
What does this have to do with Premonition? If you've seen the movie, I hope you'll see the correlation. First, let me say that I didn't like this movie. It had so many things that annoy me. Not the least of which was some supernatural plot gimmick that had no explanation. Why is Sandra Bullock living the days of this specific week out of order? Was the priest supposed to provide some type of explanation? Hardly! So, basically, this was a time travel movie without being explicitly marketed as one.
Having said that, this time travel movie suffers from the same problem that many others do. In fact, it is the exact same complaint I have with Minority Report (Which was a much better movie). Her premonition is the direct cause of his death. If she did not have the premonition he is still living so what caused the premonition? He's not dead. (With Minority Report it was the Pre-cog's vision that causes the dominoes to tumble eventually ending with Cruise's character committing the murder the Pre-cog saw. No Pre-cog, no murder) No premonition, no death.
How did this movie get made? In my movie, the camera leads the anti-hero to a place where he causes peoples' deaths. In Premonition, the foreknowledge of how and when her husband dies causes Sandra Bullock to take actions that cause his death. If she lived the day he died like any other day, then he lives.
The producers who green lighted Photo Finish with their required changes made my movie better. The producers who green lighted Premonition (especially with it's clearly altered audience tested moronic ending) should not have made their movie.
Even though Bullock, Shyann McClure, and Courtney Taylor Burness (the girls playing her daughters) put forth fairly remarkable performances, considering the subject matter, they still weren't able to rescue this movie from its own storyline. (And what is with Sandra doing all these movies with weird time plot gimmicks? See The Lake House.)
Taking into account the acting: 1.5 out of 5 stars.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
I Can't Believe This Exists
This may become a regular (or semi-regular) installment on JMO. If that does become the case then here is the first episode:
I can't believe that this exists:
That's right! Remember, you saw it here first: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the musical starring David Hasselhoff! Be sure to show some restraint. Don't all rush out to buy one.
That's right! Remember, you saw it here first: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the musical starring David Hasselhoff! Be sure to show some restraint. Don't all rush out to buy one.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Nissan
With all of the failing car companies in the news, I can't help but wonder why people buy Nissans.Noun 1. Nissan - the seventh month of the civil year; the first month of the ecclesiastic year (in March and April) in the Hebrew calendar.
Here's why I ask: When I think of all of the things a car could focus on, I don't think there is a Nissan that is primary for any of them!
A Nissan isn't known for being:
Reliable like the Honda Accord or a Saturn
Safe like a Volvo
Fuel efficient like the Honda Civic or the Toyota Prius
Powerful like the Sliverado, Ram, Bronco, or Tacoma
a Muscle-car like the Mustang
a Family mobile like the Dodge Grand Caravan or Plymouth Voyager
a Chick magnet like the Mitsubishi Mirage or Eclipse
Luxurious like a BMW, Infinity, or an Audi
a Status symbol like a Lexus or a Jaguar
Stereotypical like the El Camino or the Monte Carlo
Eco-friendly like the Yaris
Sporty like the Pontiac Bonneville or Corvette
Versatile like the Subaru Outback or Ford Edge
Fun like the Dodge Neon or VW Passat
Classic like the Toyota Corolla or VW Bug
Aesthetically pleasing like a Ferrari or an Eagle Vision
an Old Person car like a Cadillac, Oldsmobile, or Lincoln
In fact, the only category that I could come up with that a Nissa might be first in would be "Nissan-y." But even in that category I might put the Mazda G6 as more "like a Nissan" than a Nissan.
So, please, why would anyone purchase a Nissan?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Translation, Please?
Ever notice how toddlers and young children seem to be speaking another language, and yet their parents somehow understand them?
Such is the case with our little Full House. His vocabulary is growing by leaps and bounds, he is speaking in full sentences, and he is finding creative ways to let us know what he is talking about. While, on one hand he is an excellent speaker and everyone he interacts with finds it easy to communicate with him; on the other hand, he does say a few things that could pass for other, sometimes humorous, words or phrases.
Below is a pictorial quiz to see how well you can speak "Full House-ese." The pictures are visual representations of what it sounds like he is saying. Can you determine what he means?
The first comment on this post will be what one might hear when he speaks, the "literal translation" if you will. Later in the week, I'll put the answers of what he actually means. See how well you can do. Feel free to put your answers in comments and let us all know if you used just the picture, or the picture and the explanation, to form your guess.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Happy guessing. Don't forget: The first comment is the "literal translation" of each picture and check back later for what he is really saying!
Such is the case with our little Full House. His vocabulary is growing by leaps and bounds, he is speaking in full sentences, and he is finding creative ways to let us know what he is talking about. While, on one hand he is an excellent speaker and everyone he interacts with finds it easy to communicate with him; on the other hand, he does say a few things that could pass for other, sometimes humorous, words or phrases.
Below is a pictorial quiz to see how well you can speak "Full House-ese." The pictures are visual representations of what it sounds like he is saying. Can you determine what he means?
The first comment on this post will be what one might hear when he speaks, the "literal translation" if you will. Later in the week, I'll put the answers of what he actually means. See how well you can do. Feel free to put your answers in comments and let us all know if you used just the picture, or the picture and the explanation, to form your guess.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Happy guessing. Don't forget: The first comment is the "literal translation" of each picture and check back later for what he is really saying!
Monday, May 11, 2009
Selling Medocrity
I saw a preview for Tom Hank's newest film that proclaimed:
"Audiences and critics around the world agree: Angels and Demons is better than The Davinci Code!"
Is that the best they could come up with? I picture people standing outside the theater, shrugging and saying off-handedly, "Well, at least it was better than The DaVinci Code."
Isn't that like saying: "Sportscasters and fans alike believe that the 2007 Dolphins (1-15) were better than the 2008 Lions (0-16)!"
"Chefs and patrons both concur: week-old moldy mushroom soup is better than month-old maggot filled road kill!"
"Families everywhere declare: living in a run-down apartment is better than living in a cardboard box!"
Are we supposed to be impressed when they compare new crap with old crap and decide that new crap is better? Just wondering.
"Audiences and critics around the world agree: Angels and Demons is better than The Davinci Code!"
Is that the best they could come up with? I picture people standing outside the theater, shrugging and saying off-handedly, "Well, at least it was better than The DaVinci Code."
Isn't that like saying: "Sportscasters and fans alike believe that the 2007 Dolphins (1-15) were better than the 2008 Lions (0-16)!"
"Chefs and patrons both concur: week-old moldy mushroom soup is better than month-old maggot filled road kill!"
"Families everywhere declare: living in a run-down apartment is better than living in a cardboard box!"
Are we supposed to be impressed when they compare new crap with old crap and decide that new crap is better? Just wondering.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Outrageous!
"Filmmaker" Kirby Dick is at it again! The very first movie review on JMO was of this embittered man's attempt at a documentary regarding the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system. It ended up being "a whiny attack by a man who basically wants to see more sex in movies (allow more people under 18 to view it) and attempted to undermine the MPAA by slapping an undue "censor" moniker upon it." -JMO.
In his new "documentary," called Outrage, Dick purposefully outs closeted homosexual politicians who actively campaign and vote against the gay liberal agenda. In interviews, his stated purpose of this "documentary" is to expose the hypocrisy in these politicians. He states that a fringe effect of this is the unauthorized outing of these supposed closet homosexuals (all of whom happen to be members of the Republican party ~ surprise, surprise.) It has little to do with his support for the gay agenda.
This is wrong on so many levels! For years, one of the staples of the Left's gay agenda, and one of their repeated points as to why their legislation should pass, is that "what happens in someone's bedroom is private and the government should not intervene." I guess it's only private when it suits them. If they deem it counter-productive it becomes everyone's business.
Another complaint of the liberal left arose when a homosexual was outed by the media. This was "none of the public's business" and it was a despicable act by the media to out this person. It was their prerogative when and how they announced their sexual preference. Unless it was deemed counter-productive to the homosexual cause, then it becomes everyone's business.
Now, again, Kirby Dick states that this "film" is primarily to expose the hypocrisy in Washington. If that is the case then I look forward to his upcoming "documentaries":
Up In Smoke - Politicians who smoke but pass anti-smoking laws.
Gun Shy - Politicians who own guns and vote for gun control laws.
Color Blind - African-American politicians who actively oppose Affirmative Action.
Straight & Narrow - Heterosexual politicians who support the homosexual cause.
Life & Death - Politicians who believe in Pro-life for themselves yet vote for Pro-choice legislation.
Rabid Pacifist - Draft-dodging politicians who support and wage war.
I.O.USA - Tax-evading politicians who vote to increase taxes.
Party Poopers - A two-part documentary that focuses on Republicans who vote for Socialist programs and Democrats who vote for pro-American legislation.
Once Dick has finished his comprehensive project on the hypocrisy in Washington, he should move on to his crowning jewel: Private No More: An expose on how those entrenched in the gay agenda will ignore their mantra of "the government should stay out of the bedroom" so that they can out anyone they chose if they feel it furthers their cause. And perhaps the most hypocritical act is to hold the view that homosexuals deserve equal rights, that the government should stay out of the bedroom, and then out people who had chosen to exercise their right to have their sexual preference remain private. I smell an Oscar!
I sincerely hope that those who earnestly believe in the cause of homosexuals will call this "documentary" what it is: detrimental, unethical, disrespectful, and hypocritical. And that is Just My Opinion!
In his new "documentary," called Outrage, Dick purposefully outs closeted homosexual politicians who actively campaign and vote against the gay liberal agenda. In interviews, his stated purpose of this "documentary" is to expose the hypocrisy in these politicians. He states that a fringe effect of this is the unauthorized outing of these supposed closet homosexuals (all of whom happen to be members of the Republican party ~ surprise, surprise.) It has little to do with his support for the gay agenda.
This is wrong on so many levels! For years, one of the staples of the Left's gay agenda, and one of their repeated points as to why their legislation should pass, is that "what happens in someone's bedroom is private and the government should not intervene." I guess it's only private when it suits them. If they deem it counter-productive it becomes everyone's business.
Another complaint of the liberal left arose when a homosexual was outed by the media. This was "none of the public's business" and it was a despicable act by the media to out this person. It was their prerogative when and how they announced their sexual preference. Unless it was deemed counter-productive to the homosexual cause, then it becomes everyone's business.
Now, again, Kirby Dick states that this "film" is primarily to expose the hypocrisy in Washington. If that is the case then I look forward to his upcoming "documentaries":
Once Dick has finished his comprehensive project on the hypocrisy in Washington, he should move on to his crowning jewel: Private No More: An expose on how those entrenched in the gay agenda will ignore their mantra of "the government should stay out of the bedroom" so that they can out anyone they chose if they feel it furthers their cause. And perhaps the most hypocritical act is to hold the view that homosexuals deserve equal rights, that the government should stay out of the bedroom, and then out people who had chosen to exercise their right to have their sexual preference remain private. I smell an Oscar!
I sincerely hope that those who earnestly believe in the cause of homosexuals will call this "documentary" what it is: detrimental, unethical, disrespectful, and hypocritical. And that is Just My Opinion!
Saturday, May 02, 2009
The Father's Blessing
Abraham blessed Isaac.
Isaac blessed Jacob.
Jacob pronounced a blessing over all twelve of his sons.
Even Jesus received a blessing from his Father when he was baptised.
This weekend, our church provides an opportunity for parents to give this kind of amazing, life changing blessing to their children as they welcome their 7th and 8th graders into adulthood.
And the church has begun to take steps to actually back up the concept that they are adults by allowing them to become voting members. By seeing them, not as the future of the church, but as the church of today. And by slowly but surely listening to the voice of the youth.
Why is this important? Our society is filled with children who are trying to find their way without the intentional blessing of their parents. In particular, their father. Someone who has not received this blessing typically seeks acceptance from everyone and has difficulty if someone does not accept them. They are concerned that they never quite measure up. They search in as many places they can find for the blessing they never received as they entered adulthood.
Read through some of the Biblical blessings. Gary Smalley and John Trent in their book The Blessing have accurately found that a blessing consists of "a spoken message of high value, a message that pictures a special future for the individual being bless and one that is base on an active commitment to see the blessing come to pass."
I am a dad. I will devote myself to blessing my children. Daily if I can. As often as I remember. And intentionally bestow upon both of them a complete Biblically based blessing as they enter adulthood.
I hope to bless them with, not only words, but action. By introducing them to Christ. By supporting their development: emotionally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually. By pastoring my family, modeling a husband striving to love his wife, setting an example of unconditional love in parenting.
Will I fail? You bet! I already have. Will I give up? Absolutely not!
Have you missed your blessing? Don't let that fall to your children as well. Think you've missed your chance to bless your children? It's never too late to start over. Has God blessed you with offspring? Be sure you bless your offspring with your actions and words!
I found an amazing passage recently: Isaiah 49:15 (God speaking to Israel) "I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands." How true! He chose to engrave my name onto the palm of his hands using the nails that held him to the cross.
Isaac blessed Jacob.
Jacob pronounced a blessing over all twelve of his sons.
Even Jesus received a blessing from his Father when he was baptised.
This weekend, our church provides an opportunity for parents to give this kind of amazing, life changing blessing to their children as they welcome their 7th and 8th graders into adulthood.
And the church has begun to take steps to actually back up the concept that they are adults by allowing them to become voting members. By seeing them, not as the future of the church, but as the church of today. And by slowly but surely listening to the voice of the youth.
Why is this important? Our society is filled with children who are trying to find their way without the intentional blessing of their parents. In particular, their father. Someone who has not received this blessing typically seeks acceptance from everyone and has difficulty if someone does not accept them. They are concerned that they never quite measure up. They search in as many places they can find for the blessing they never received as they entered adulthood.
Read through some of the Biblical blessings. Gary Smalley and John Trent in their book The Blessing have accurately found that a blessing consists of "a spoken message of high value, a message that pictures a special future for the individual being bless and one that is base on an active commitment to see the blessing come to pass."
I am a dad. I will devote myself to blessing my children. Daily if I can. As often as I remember. And intentionally bestow upon both of them a complete Biblically based blessing as they enter adulthood.
I hope to bless them with, not only words, but action. By introducing them to Christ. By supporting their development: emotionally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually. By pastoring my family, modeling a husband striving to love his wife, setting an example of unconditional love in parenting.
Will I fail? You bet! I already have. Will I give up? Absolutely not!
Have you missed your blessing? Don't let that fall to your children as well. Think you've missed your chance to bless your children? It's never too late to start over. Has God blessed you with offspring? Be sure you bless your offspring with your actions and words!
I found an amazing passage recently: Isaiah 49:15 (God speaking to Israel) "I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands." How true! He chose to engrave my name onto the palm of his hands using the nails that held him to the cross.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Eight Short Commentaries
Just a few short (and this time, though each successive one gets longer, by JMO standards these are all very short) thoughts on various subjects:
The roads in New England are not made for post surgery travel.
Before we had the medical ability to take out the appendix, was severe pain in your lower right side a death sentence?
"Obama looks to cut $100,000,000 from the federal budget." I know a couple of recent spending bills that could be cut...
Struggling to cut $100 Million from the $3 Trillion federal budget is like having a $3,000 budget and struggling to cut ten cents.
Note to supporters of "same-sex" marriage: The majority of the nation still opposes "Same-Sex" marriage (not a commentary for civil unions). Stop acting like your stance is main stream and stop slamming people when they express an honest opinion.
If there is to be a separation of Church and State, it needs to go both ways: Hey Church, don't tell my government how to govern. Hey State, don't tell my church how to handle its finances, don't tell my church who it must and must not marry, don't tell my church who it can and cannot refuse to hire.
The IMF is guesstimating that the world's economy won't recover until 2010! This is being reported as though we still have a long way to go. Wait a minute, I thought this was the greatest recession since the great depression. Two years doesn't quite make this the recession of the century! I guess this was over hyped too. Anything to get into office, right? (Of course, Obama will take credit for this recovery. Even though I still believe that after the "stimulus" money is gone, the US will see another dip, a more severe dip in our economy before we recover.)
Let us briefly note the difference in stimulus programs compared to the parties that authored them. The Republicans (remember: for big business and the rich) gave a stimulus to the people. The same amount to everyone unless you had kids, then you got a little more. The Democrats (remember for the little guy, against big business) gave a stimulus to HUGE businesses (AIG, GMC, Fannie and Freddie Mac, ETC) and to states to give the money to the lowest bidder (IE: other big businesses) for special projects. Wake up American voter! Stop guzzling the Kool-Aid! Look at the facts and think for yourself! Which party is favoring "the little guy" and which one is favoring "big business?"
Those are some of the things rattling around in my skull. Feel free to share your thoughts on them or add your own!
Those are some of the things rattling around in my skull. Feel free to share your thoughts on them or add your own!
Monday, April 20, 2009
I Am A "Right-Wing Extremist"
At least, according to Janet Napolitano, the head of homeland security, I am.
And you might be too!
You may have heard the hubbub over Napolitano stating that returning Veterans would be targeted by these "Right-Wing Extremest" groups as possible recruits, and how up in arms the Veterans, and those who support them, were.
Not willing to just take someone's word for it, I found the declassified report. Low and behold, not only does it say that disgruntled veterans would be prime targets, but it also says that I am one, too! The report states:
Now, while I don't fall into the hate category. I definitely favor state authority over federal authority and I am defiantly in opposition to abortion and illegal immigration.
Truth be told, my stat counter has already registered a hit from the House of Representatives.
Maybe they are keeping an eye on me! Little do they know, I am keeping an eye on them!
I also had to chuckle that, according to this report, if you are a "Right-Wing Extremist" you are automatically breaking the law. Read this sentence:
To recap: I appose abortion. I favor states rights over federal authority, I oppose illegal immigration. Therefore, according to this report, I am a potential threat to the government. Are you?
You may have heard the hubbub over Napolitano stating that returning Veterans would be targeted by these "Right-Wing Extremest" groups as possible recruits, and how up in arms the Veterans, and those who support them, were.
Not willing to just take someone's word for it, I found the declassified report. Low and behold, not only does it say that disgruntled veterans would be prime targets, but it also says that I am one, too! The report states:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.Here we must note a few things. First, true to Washington's absolute narcissism, the only "government" that matters is the federal government. According to this paragraph, those that are "antigovernment" "reject federal authority in favor of state..." Apparently, state government doesn't exist. Second, did you find the immigration bias in this paragraph? I'm sure "Right-Wing Extremists" don't oppose immigration, but rather illegal immigration. Based on context elsewhere in the report, illegal immigration is listed as simply "immigration." As JMO has stated before, I refuse to refer to illegal aliens as "immigrants" as that term implies paperwork, visas, and law. As opposed to wire cutters, dark clothes, and the circumvention of the law
Now, while I don't fall into the hate category. I definitely favor state authority over federal authority and I am defiantly in opposition to abortion and illegal immigration.
Truth be told, my stat counter has already registered a hit from the House of Representatives.
Maybe they are keeping an eye on me! Little do they know, I am keeping an eye on them!I also had to chuckle that, according to this report, if you are a "Right-Wing Extremist" you are automatically breaking the law. Read this sentence:
Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of ammunition.That's right, "Rightwing Extremists" as well as law abiding citizens ~ And ne'er the twain shall meet.
To recap: I appose abortion. I favor states rights over federal authority, I oppose illegal immigration. Therefore, according to this report, I am a potential threat to the government. Are you?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Another Advertisement
In my last post, I mentioned an ad that I thought was humorous due to its claim that somehow doughnuts were better for your children than cartoons. Well, in this post, I'm going to destroy an advertisement that drives me absolutely crazy!
Mastercard has often assembled some of the more touching or thought provoking ads with their "Priceless" campaign. Their most recent attempt, however, falls well short of the mark. (You can view the commercial here.)
For those who haven't seen it, an eight year old boy is participating in everyday activities with his dad: brushing their teeth, buying light bulbs, and grocery shopping. With each activity the boy helps his dad be more eco-friendly. "Water glass... five dollars" says child's voice over as the youth turns off the running water. "Energy saving bulb... four dollars" and the child hands the dad the low power bulb while daddy returns the standard one. "reusable bag... two dollars." The son hands the plastic bag back to the cashier and gets a reusable one for his dad. "Helping your dad become a better man: Priceless."
I've often complain that Hollywood puts out too many films where the adults are morons and the kids/teens have all the answers. Now Mastercard has fallen into that same trap. I find few undercurrents more demeaning, more offensive, more detrimental to society than the one that puts forth that the youth know more than the aged.
What are we to infer from this ad? Somewhere this child learned how to be eco-friendly and needs to pass his eight-year-old wisdom on to his dad. Who did he learn if from? TV? His teachers? His friends? What else does dear-ole-daddy not know? What else has dad taught him that he should question or completely ignore? Nothing like undermining what should be the loudest strongest voice of influence in our lives: Our Dad.
Wanna make an eco-friendly commercial? Go right ahead. But have the dad teaching the child how to be environmentally responsible. The dad gives the kid the glass, shows him the better bulb, explains why he's bringing bags into the store. Need a tagline? "Raising the generation you are saving the world for: Priceless." "Passing the world on to a more responsible generation: Priceless." Teaching our children to be responsible is part of the job description. They could even leave my version with "Being a dad: Priceless." letting everybody know: This is something that all dads need to be doing.
Telling Mastercard where they can stick their commercial: Priceless.
Mastercard has often assembled some of the more touching or thought provoking ads with their "Priceless" campaign. Their most recent attempt, however, falls well short of the mark. (You can view the commercial here.)
For those who haven't seen it, an eight year old boy is participating in everyday activities with his dad: brushing their teeth, buying light bulbs, and grocery shopping. With each activity the boy helps his dad be more eco-friendly. "Water glass... five dollars" says child's voice over as the youth turns off the running water. "Energy saving bulb... four dollars" and the child hands the dad the low power bulb while daddy returns the standard one. "reusable bag... two dollars." The son hands the plastic bag back to the cashier and gets a reusable one for his dad. "Helping your dad become a better man: Priceless."
I've often complain that Hollywood puts out too many films where the adults are morons and the kids/teens have all the answers. Now Mastercard has fallen into that same trap. I find few undercurrents more demeaning, more offensive, more detrimental to society than the one that puts forth that the youth know more than the aged.
What are we to infer from this ad? Somewhere this child learned how to be eco-friendly and needs to pass his eight-year-old wisdom on to his dad. Who did he learn if from? TV? His teachers? His friends? What else does dear-ole-daddy not know? What else has dad taught him that he should question or completely ignore? Nothing like undermining what should be the loudest strongest voice of influence in our lives: Our Dad.
Wanna make an eco-friendly commercial? Go right ahead. But have the dad teaching the child how to be environmentally responsible. The dad gives the kid the glass, shows him the better bulb, explains why he's bringing bags into the store. Need a tagline? "Raising the generation you are saving the world for: Priceless." "Passing the world on to a more responsible generation: Priceless." Teaching our children to be responsible is part of the job description. They could even leave my version with "Being a dad: Priceless." letting everybody know: This is something that all dads need to be doing.
Telling Mastercard where they can stick their commercial: Priceless.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
300
Three years, seven months, twenty-five days.
Just under 44 months
Three days over 190 weeks
One thousand three hundred thirty-three days.
Thirty-one thousand nine hundred ninety-two hours
That is how long it has taken me to reach my three hundredth post.
Don't be fooled! This is not a review of the movie 300. This is my third "Let's look back" episode!
My first one hundred only took seven months, twenty-seven days
The next were posted over a period of one year, nine months, eighteen days
The most recent one hundred took one year, two months, and eleven days
These past 100 posts have seen some milestones!
Here is just a quick review of the subject matter covered over the past 100 posts. (the link is to my favorite post in each category):
Politics won with 21 posts
Of those
12 of them were episodes of the "Voting Booth"
7 were aimed squarely at Obama, and
4 were about the economy
Sports was second with 20 posts
12 of them were about the NFL
General Culture grabbed 10 posts
15 were movie review posts (multiple reviews on a single post totalled 18 reviews)
As with all "Flashbacks" one has to pull out their favorite moment, Ross' leather pants from friends, the nose-slap from Cheers, and the following from JMO's "Holiday Compromise":
Now, one can only have so many of these without introducing something new in them. I believe I've reached that limit. Here is a new thought that you haven't read yet on JMO:
Dunkin Donuts has an ad campaign out right now that cracks me up. The children are in a dim living room watching cartoons. Hulu would be glad because they are transfixed, clearly rotting their brains.
Enter: Dad. He's returning home after a visit to Dunkin Donuts. Magically, the hypnotic trance of the television is broken. The children rush into a brightly lit kitchen and feast on the dozen doughnuts their father has purchased. In the background, the family dog is being unwillingly drawn in by the power of the TV.
The message of the ad? Hey kids, stop watching that crap, come over here and eat this crap!
If you like what you've seen over these last 300 posts, let me know! Want to see more of something? Less of something else? Here's to another hundred episodes of Just My Opinion!
Just under 44 months
Three days over 190 weeks
One thousand three hundred thirty-three days.
Thirty-one thousand nine hundred ninety-two hours
That is how long it has taken me to reach my three hundredth post.
Don't be fooled! This is not a review of the movie 300. This is my third "Let's look back" episode!
My first one hundred only took seven months, twenty-seven days
The next were posted over a period of one year, nine months, eighteen days
The most recent one hundred took one year, two months, and eleven days
These past 100 posts have seen some milestones!
- The birth of my beautiful daughter!
- The beginning of my wonderful wife's blog: It's Called Guilt
- The most comments on a single post
(52 sparked by Intelligent Design, blowing the previous record of 39 on a post about immigration out of the water) - The addition of high-speed Internet at home (leading to a great increase in photos being used to improve the JMO experience)
Here is just a quick review of the subject matter covered over the past 100 posts. (the link is to my favorite post in each category):
Politics won with 21 posts
Of those
12 of them were episodes of the "Voting Booth"
7 were aimed squarely at Obama, and
4 were about the economy
Sports was second with 20 posts
12 of them were about the NFL
General Culture grabbed 10 posts
15 were movie review posts (multiple reviews on a single post totalled 18 reviews)
As with all "Flashbacks" one has to pull out their favorite moment, Ross' leather pants from friends, the nose-slap from Cheers, and the following from JMO's "Holiday Compromise":
You will not have December 25th off and while you are working you will not be earning double time.
Clearly the day has no meaning for you. I don't take Rosh Hashanah off. I'm working on the Summer Solstice. I don't sleep late on Eid Al-Fitr. I don't stay up till midnight on January 25th. You don't get my religious holiday off. Now, if it's your argument that exchanging gifts with loved ones on the 25th day of the 12th month is cultural and that's why you should get the day off, then that would be called "Christmas."
Now, one can only have so many of these without introducing something new in them. I believe I've reached that limit. Here is a new thought that you haven't read yet on JMO:
Dunkin Donuts has an ad campaign out right now that cracks me up. The children are in a dim living room watching cartoons. Hulu would be glad because they are transfixed, clearly rotting their brains.
Enter: Dad. He's returning home after a visit to Dunkin Donuts. Magically, the hypnotic trance of the television is broken. The children rush into a brightly lit kitchen and feast on the dozen doughnuts their father has purchased. In the background, the family dog is being unwillingly drawn in by the power of the TV.
The message of the ad? Hey kids, stop watching that crap, come over here and eat this crap!
If you like what you've seen over these last 300 posts, let me know! Want to see more of something? Less of something else? Here's to another hundred episodes of Just My Opinion!
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Allianced Intermingled Greed
While investigating the "Watergate" scandal, Woodward and Bernstein (Co-authors of "All the President's Men") were admonished to "Follow the money."
As history has shown us, that has turned out to be very sound advice. So, let's take a few minutes today and follow the banking bail-out money.
We know that some of that money went to pay bonuses for certain employees of the bail-out companies. In response, several high ranking government officials expressed their outrage that AIG, in particular, would dare use the bail-out money for these bonuses. Many people don't know these were bonuses that AIG was contractually obligated to pay.
The outrage came from all over Washington, including the Oval Office!
But the money continues, let's keep following:
What else has AIG done with their bailout money? What a surprise! They've donated it to certain politicians' campaigns! What do you know? They are not the only bailed-out bank to be doing this!
Bank of America (which received $15 billion in bail-out dollars) has donated $24,500 in contributions in the first two months of 2009 alone! The lucky recipients? Democrat Steny Hoyer and members of the House and Senate banking committees. Citigroup (Which was handed $25 billion of our tax dollars) has donated $29,620 and UBS (who didn't receive funds directly but was paid as an AIG "counterparty" to the tune of $5 billion) has offered $10,000 to political parties.
Excuse me? Where is the outrage? Our government has passed a bill taxing 90% of the AIG bonuses, are we taxing the post-bail-out campaign contributions to the same degree? Oh. We only tax when the money is going to someone else. I get it...
Is there more money to follow? You bet!
AIG has sent nearly $100 billion to other banks. Over half of that has been sent to foreign banks! AIG is using US Taxpayer money to bail-out the rest of the world! Included, but not limited to $36 billion given to French and German banks alone!
But wait, there's more! (JMO never just scratches the surface!)
CBS is reporting that the Obama Administration and members of Congress knew that the bonuses were going to be paid months before the checks were actually issued! Yet they did nothing to stop it! Why would they do that? Two answers:
First, they could then fake outrage and appear to be morally incensed that the tax payers money was going to pay these undeserved huge bonuses (in the hopes we'd ignore the tax dollars being given back to the politicians as campaign contributions). This is the same tactic that Obama used regarding Rev. Wright. Wait for the story to break, feign outrage, encourage him to continue speaking and distance yourself from the problem.
The second answer? They could get the money back into the pockets of the government by taxing said bonuses. If Washington stopped the bonuses from being paid, they wouldn't have 90% back in the treasury! They'd have 0% and AIG would still have all of that money!
An interesting side note to this whole debacle is that in 2008 the bailed-out banks gave an awful lot of money to the very politicians who spear-headed this bail-out process. Let's use just AIG as an example: (Remember, this is only the contributions of AIG. Imagine what these people have received on the whole from the bailed-out banks and auto makers!:
Here are the top twenty.
(D-IL) Barack Obama ....... $104,332
(D-CT) Chris Dodd .......... $103,900
(R-AZ) John McCain .......... $59,499
(D-NY) Hillary Clinton ........ $37,965
(D-MT) Max Baucus .......... $24,750
(R-MA) Mitt Romney ......... $20,850
(D-DE) Joseph R Biden Jr .... $19,975
(D-CT) John B Larson ........ $19,750
(R-NH) John E Sununu ....... $18,500
(R-NY) Rudolph W Giuliani .. $13,200
(D-PA) Paul E Kanjorski ...... $12,000
(D-IL) Dick Durbin ............ $11,000
(D-CO) Edwin G Perlmutter . $10,500
(D-NY) Charles B Rangel ...... $9,000
(D-NC) John Edwards ......... $7,850
(R-TN) Bob Corker ............ $7,400
(R-NJ) Chris Smith ............ $6,900
(D-MA) Richard E Neal ........ $6,500
(D-WV) Jay Rockefeller ....... $6,500
(D-RI) Jack Reed .............. $6,000
Totals:
Donations to Republicans:
Total number of donations: 17
Average per donation: $6,132
Total donation amount: $104,249
Donations to Democrats
Total number of donations: 18
Average per donation: $18,229
Total donation amount: $328,122
I want to know where the major media journalists are. They are usually so fast to break stories like this. Sounds to me like Chris Dodd is set up to be the fall guy for all of these people who took money, gave a ton of money, and are now continuing to receive money from these very people.
Fishy-fishy!
Because it has taken me so long to finish this post, there is something that I must comment on: Our President has publicly shamed America while in Europe. Anyone else incensed? Obama worships at the alter of the EU because it's headed down the socialist path. America doesn't.
As history has shown us, that has turned out to be very sound advice. So, let's take a few minutes today and follow the banking bail-out money.
We know that some of that money went to pay bonuses for certain employees of the bail-out companies. In response, several high ranking government officials expressed their outrage that AIG, in particular, would dare use the bail-out money for these bonuses. Many people don't know these were bonuses that AIG was contractually obligated to pay.
The outrage came from all over Washington, including the Oval Office!
But the money continues, let's keep following:
What else has AIG done with their bailout money? What a surprise! They've donated it to certain politicians' campaigns! What do you know? They are not the only bailed-out bank to be doing this!
Bank of America (which received $15 billion in bail-out dollars) has donated $24,500 in contributions in the first two months of 2009 alone! The lucky recipients? Democrat Steny Hoyer and members of the House and Senate banking committees. Citigroup (Which was handed $25 billion of our tax dollars) has donated $29,620 and UBS (who didn't receive funds directly but was paid as an AIG "counterparty" to the tune of $5 billion) has offered $10,000 to political parties.
Excuse me? Where is the outrage? Our government has passed a bill taxing 90% of the AIG bonuses, are we taxing the post-bail-out campaign contributions to the same degree? Oh. We only tax when the money is going to someone else. I get it...
Is there more money to follow? You bet!
AIG has sent nearly $100 billion to other banks. Over half of that has been sent to foreign banks! AIG is using US Taxpayer money to bail-out the rest of the world! Included, but not limited to $36 billion given to French and German banks alone!
But wait, there's more! (JMO never just scratches the surface!)
CBS is reporting that the Obama Administration and members of Congress knew that the bonuses were going to be paid months before the checks were actually issued! Yet they did nothing to stop it! Why would they do that? Two answers:
First, they could then fake outrage and appear to be morally incensed that the tax payers money was going to pay these undeserved huge bonuses (in the hopes we'd ignore the tax dollars being given back to the politicians as campaign contributions). This is the same tactic that Obama used regarding Rev. Wright. Wait for the story to break, feign outrage, encourage him to continue speaking and distance yourself from the problem.
The second answer? They could get the money back into the pockets of the government by taxing said bonuses. If Washington stopped the bonuses from being paid, they wouldn't have 90% back in the treasury! They'd have 0% and AIG would still have all of that money!
An interesting side note to this whole debacle is that in 2008 the bailed-out banks gave an awful lot of money to the very politicians who spear-headed this bail-out process. Let's use just AIG as an example: (Remember, this is only the contributions of AIG. Imagine what these people have received on the whole from the bailed-out banks and auto makers!:
Here are the top twenty.
(D-IL) Barack Obama ....... $104,332
(D-CT) Chris Dodd .......... $103,900
(R-AZ) John McCain .......... $59,499
(D-NY) Hillary Clinton ........ $37,965
(D-MT) Max Baucus .......... $24,750
(R-MA) Mitt Romney ......... $20,850
(D-DE) Joseph R Biden Jr .... $19,975
(D-CT) John B Larson ........ $19,750
(R-NH) John E Sununu ....... $18,500
(R-NY) Rudolph W Giuliani .. $13,200
(D-PA) Paul E Kanjorski ...... $12,000
(D-IL) Dick Durbin ............ $11,000
(D-CO) Edwin G Perlmutter . $10,500
(D-NY) Charles B Rangel ...... $9,000
(D-NC) John Edwards ......... $7,850
(R-TN) Bob Corker ............ $7,400
(R-NJ) Chris Smith ............ $6,900
(D-MA) Richard E Neal ........ $6,500
(D-WV) Jay Rockefeller ....... $6,500
(D-RI) Jack Reed .............. $6,000
Totals:
Donations to Republicans:
Total number of donations: 17
Average per donation: $6,132
Total donation amount: $104,249
Donations to Democrats
Total number of donations: 18
Average per donation: $18,229
Total donation amount: $328,122
I want to know where the major media journalists are. They are usually so fast to break stories like this. Sounds to me like Chris Dodd is set up to be the fall guy for all of these people who took money, gave a ton of money, and are now continuing to receive money from these very people.
Fishy-fishy!
Because it has taken me so long to finish this post, there is something that I must comment on: Our President has publicly shamed America while in Europe. Anyone else incensed? Obama worships at the alter of the EU because it's headed down the socialist path. America doesn't.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
New School Rule
A child from Milford Connecticut's middle school had to be hospitalized after being struck in the groin by a classmate. The school authorities took quick action and instituted a policy to prevent this from ever happening again.
Did they strengthen the school's rules regarding fighting? No. Did they add a "horseplay" clause to those regulations? Nope. Rather, they instituted a "No Touching" rule. This rule states that touching of any kind could result in "parent conferences, detention, suspension and/or a request for expulsion from school!"
Come on, they can't mean no touching at all!? Can they?
YES! No touching. No pushing. No hugging. No high-fives. No holding hands. No Patty-Cake. No Touching Period.
Let's extend this out logically. This rule means: No tag. No football (Well, maybe flag football, but no blocking). No baseball (Or if you do play, once you are on base steal steal steal! If they can't touch you, they can't tag you out!). Theater would be difficult (Imagine Romeo and Juliet unable to come in contact with each other!).
How indicative is this of our culture?! Something happens that's bad, so we over-react! The "Shoe bomber" happens and every traveler in or going to America has to remove their shoes at the gate (Because when something fails, terrorists often try that exact same thing again.). A few people believe that immunization shots cause autism, so we cause a hysteria regarding them. (This action in no way saves our children from autism, but it does open the door for "extinct" diseases such as small pox, polio, mumps and measles.) A few people are offended by Christmas, so it's illegal to have a tree on the town green and companies won't wish you "Merry Christmas." (Let's remember that without the commercialism of Christmas most stores would be out of business! And Santa still makes money so we'll charge people to have their picture taken with him in the mall.) What's next? Some people are dying in car accidents: NO MORE DRIVING! (But when it comes to teens and sex, well, they are going to do it anyway...)
And what's next for this middle school in Connecticut? Are children having their feelings hurt from name-calling? No talking! Is that student making you nervous because he's staring at you menacingly? Don't look at each other! Whoever suggested this rule should be fired and whoever agreed to it should be demoted!
Kudos to the students, however, who protested the new ruling by coming to school wrapped in blue duct tape. My high school principle was wrong when he said that the school was there for the administrators and the faculty. Peacefully voice your dissension, students! Don't let them usurp your school!
That's my opinion. What's yours?
Did they strengthen the school's rules regarding fighting? No. Did they add a "horseplay" clause to those regulations? Nope. Rather, they instituted a "No Touching" rule. This rule states that touching of any kind could result in "parent conferences, detention, suspension and/or a request for expulsion from school!"
Come on, they can't mean no touching at all!? Can they?
YES! No touching. No pushing. No hugging. No high-fives. No holding hands. No Patty-Cake. No Touching Period.
Let's extend this out logically. This rule means: No tag. No football (Well, maybe flag football, but no blocking). No baseball (Or if you do play, once you are on base steal steal steal! If they can't touch you, they can't tag you out!). Theater would be difficult (Imagine Romeo and Juliet unable to come in contact with each other!).
How indicative is this of our culture?! Something happens that's bad, so we over-react! The "Shoe bomber" happens and every traveler in or going to America has to remove their shoes at the gate (Because when something fails, terrorists often try that exact same thing again.). A few people believe that immunization shots cause autism, so we cause a hysteria regarding them. (This action in no way saves our children from autism, but it does open the door for "extinct" diseases such as small pox, polio, mumps and measles.) A few people are offended by Christmas, so it's illegal to have a tree on the town green and companies won't wish you "Merry Christmas." (Let's remember that without the commercialism of Christmas most stores would be out of business! And Santa still makes money so we'll charge people to have their picture taken with him in the mall.) What's next? Some people are dying in car accidents: NO MORE DRIVING! (But when it comes to teens and sex, well, they are going to do it anyway...)
And what's next for this middle school in Connecticut? Are children having their feelings hurt from name-calling? No talking! Is that student making you nervous because he's staring at you menacingly? Don't look at each other! Whoever suggested this rule should be fired and whoever agreed to it should be demoted!
Kudos to the students, however, who protested the new ruling by coming to school wrapped in blue duct tape. My high school principle was wrong when he said that the school was there for the administrators and the faculty. Peacefully voice your dissension, students! Don't let them usurp your school!
That's my opinion. What's yours?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)