Road to Nowhere?

Last night on the news they talked about this road that is being planned/built in Africa that is supposed to cut clear across the serengeti, the valuable and unique habititat of some of our favorite fellow species, including; lions, elephants, giraffes, zebra, cheetahs, gazelle, wildebeast, etc.
The reason for this road is to transport materials from a mine in Tanzania, materials that will be used to make cell phones. Do we really think it is worth it to sacrifice this beautiful place, and all its wonderful creatures for cell phones?! Isn't that kinda greedy and heartless? Even if it isn't, I think there are two much better options. I'll try to explain.

1. BUILD A FREAKING AIRPORT IN TANZANIA!!!!! Is building a huge/long road really better/more cost effective than building an airport? Have they tried this? Even thought of it? I don't know... if start-up money is an issue maybe they could elicit donations? Anyway... I think this would solve the problem nicely.

2. Build an "eco-road." This would be a more expensive option, but could be really cool if done right. For all of you who have been to Sea World you know about the shark encounter, and the penguin exhibit. Think of those as proto- "eco-roads." What I think is instead of a road they could build sort of a giant tunnel that would look on the outside just like a kind of linear hill across the serengeti. They could plant the top with native flora (yes this works with animals, they already have them), and my idea (I don't know if this would work...) but perhaps they could put in a kind of see-through material in certain spots, like little windows. That way tourists could pay to drive through the "eco-road" and get to see all the animals in their natural habitats from the comfort of their own vehicles, and perfectly safe for both animals and people. Expensive, yeah... do-able, maybe... cool DEFINITELY...

Well, I personally think the people who decided to build this road are a bunch of total jerks and morons, but seriously... AN AIRPORT!!! AT LEAST!!!

So... instead of killing the environment and the tourist trade with a stupid and lazy road... why not build something good and constructive, like an airport, or an "eco-road." That's my idea. :)

A Year Without a Rankin Bass Christmas?

Usually I see ads all over the place for ABC Family's 25 days of Christmas. This year they seem to be oddly abscent. The mainstay of this holiday programming block is the 10 or so classic Rankin Bass stop motion animated Christmas Specials including; "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer," "Frosty the Snowman," "The Little Drummer Boy," "A Year Without a Santa Clause," "Jack Frost," and many more... I own most of these on DVD b/c I love them so much, but I feel sad to not see them being broadcast this season. I think they might have showed "A Year Without a Santa Clause" (one of my personal favorites) one time last week, but usually these Christmas things are going non-stop on the Family Channel, Cartoon Network, and Nickelodean. Is it just me, or does anybody else miss seeing these tride and true family Christmas specials broadcast "en masse" during the month?
To me it just feels like something is missing, like another little piece of holiday tradition has dissolved, and it makes me sad, especially since my own personal holiday celebrations seem to get smaller every year, what with people getting older, moving away, and other complications.
I guess I'm just pining for my younger days, but isn't that a big part of Christmas? We all gather around to give each other fun gifts in honor of (if you're agnostic/atheist) an admittedly imaginary jolly old man in a red suit, or if you're religous... well, I think most people do the "Santa Clause thing" in this country, or some other variation of this present giving ritual.
I don't think Christmas is too commercial, although people say it is. Maybe they just think it's not "Christian" enough anymore, but it was never really that "Christian" to begin with. After all, it's widely believed that if Jesus was a real person it is extremely unlikely he was born in the winter at all. I'm fairly sure the reason Christmas is on the 25th is b/c the Emperor Constantine, who converted to Christianity, and was a major influence in spreading it's popularity, moved the date of the celebration to coincide better with the already ongoing pagan celebrations of the Winter Solstice.
Also, on a side note, there is vastly more historical evidence for a single real person as the origin of the Santa Clause story than for the existence of Jesus as portrayed by the stories of the Bible. That isn't to say the "real Santa Clause" lived at the North Pole with reindeer and elves, etc. I'm fairly sure he has been identified as having been a German Monk.
So I think the real meaning of Christmas does have to do with presents. However, as they say with presents, "It's the thought that counts." It doesn't matter that your present may not be exactly what the person wanted, but getting a present, and an appropriate present does show how well you know the person, and how much care you put into thinking about them. A present represents caring, and caring is important. That's why we get so moved by those stories of people selling their prized possessions to be able to give their loved one the present they want.
Yes, it's true that companies try to exploit the season, but it's also true that if you're looking for presents it's easy to find deals around the holidays. You could also make presents.
So for me the holidays are about a few things; family, food, Santa Clause, and presents. Family is obvious I think... food, b/c what better time to break out the butter and sugar than when your family is around? Santa Clause I kind of explained, but for me he symbolizes the spirit of the holidays, a time to get together with loved ones and celebrate life, and a brief return to innocence before the coming of the New Year. And of course, presents, as I said, are a way of expressing caring, although of course their are other ways to do that.
So I hope you all have a Happy Holiday Season, and maybe if we all ask Santa Clause very nicely, next year the Christmas Specials will return! :)

Diction, AKA Word choice

Here are two words we probably should not use anymore:

Evil, War

First, evil. Using the word evil, or enemy is so general that it is pretty much useless, and only boils down to being an insult. Calling someone, or something evil is like insulting them in any other way. When we say "evil" do we mean; sadastic, immoral, unacceptable, etc. Just throwing around the word evil doesn't do any good. Insults are hurtful and they cause damage. If we mean to say someone is immoral, we should use the word immoral. Lack of clarity on such serious matters is a huge, but easily avoided problem.

Second, war. We like to use the word war a lot, but not in the way that it was originally meant. The actual definition boils down to: a direct conflict between two or more nations. So why do we say things like war on drugs, or war on cancer, or war on... any other abstract concept. You can't declare war on an abstract concept. It makes no sense. Wars can be declared only on countries. Terrorism is not a nation state. Terrorists are not a nation state. By the way, does anybody actually endorse terrorism besides terrorists? Maybe if we just gave other countries more respect, instead of acting like we own the world we could be more effective in helping EVERYONE.

We need to stop making people hate us, and I think it has a lot to do with semantics. Why do we keep making these vast generalizations about groups of other people, and throwing out words like terrorism, evil, enemy, war, and so on. Maybe we should use the words we really MEAN. It would be nice to hear a bit more rational language. For example; instead of calling a murderer evil, let's just call him what he is, a murderer. That is enough. So, if somebody commits an act of terrorism, then they are a terrorist. That's fine to say. However, it's not all right to extropolate beyond the individual act unless there is clear evidence of connection. Not all terrorists are foreign. That's the truth.

I like to say that it is wrong to use fear as a tactic to gain power. That's what terrorists do. But look around, don't you see a lot of our own politicians using the exact same tactics to raise their poll numbers? That's immoral, completely, and uncontestably. So maybe we need to look a bit closer at our own faults, or at least, the faults of our own nation, before we point the finger and call somebody evil. Doing that is just the easy, but ultimately the absolutely wrong way to try to fix things.

Making other countries mad at us... why would we do it when we don't have to? There is PROFIT in war. There is PROFIT in fear. Don't let those who PROFIT from these horrible things have power over you. IN A DEMOCRACY, WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE RULING BODY. REMEMBER YOU HAVE THE POWER. YOU CAN CHANGE THE DIALOGUE.

Hidden Gem?

           For any of you out there who prefer a hapless, sweethearted hero to your traditional White Knight character, you’ll surely enjoy the movie “Management” (2008). This sweet little film will cheer you up when you feel blue, and let you feel that maybe there is a guy out there, somewhere, to catch you when you fall. For those of us who take care of others, and enjoy doing it, but can’t seem to find anyone to take care of us on those rare occassions when we really need to be taken care of, Mike, the hero of this film is the perfect guy! He may seem just a tad weird in the beginning as he takes such a strong liking to the new girl staying at his parent’s motel that he commits the classic mistake of too much optimism, and not enough finesse when trying to attract someone. Oddly, it doesn’t totally backfire. We see that Mike, hapless as he is, wants only to love this girl. Don’t we all just want someone to love us?

            Overall I found this film a good diversion, and another checked off on my good, but predictable chick flick craze. Thank you netflix! I didn’t even know this movie existed, and Steve Zahn, who plays Mike is one of my favorite actors.  

Political Oxymoron and other Weirdness

Progressive Republican seems like an oxymoron today. How could you possibly call anyone a progressive Republican? It’s absurd! It’s unthinkable! It’s completely alien and bizzare! And yet it wasn’t always this way.

Today we have Barack Obama as the leader of our country, one of the youngest presidents, and the first one of African descent. He is unique person who championed hope and reform in his campaign a few years ago. He has actually delivered quite a bit, despite the overwhelming media narrative that everything is a mess.

Well… how about President Teddy Roosevelt? He was a progressive Republican. He cracked down on corrupt and dangerous business practices, and fought hard to protect our natural resources. He helped found our first National Park. He was also a young leader, a champion of the workers. President Obama should take a page from his book. He’s got the speaking softly part down, but he needs a little help knowing when to use that big stick.

I urge you to look at the times in which President Teddy Roosevelt governed, and compare them to the current economic, ecological, and political circumstances in which Barack Obama finds himself as leader. To all you democrats out there; the fight we want may not have started yet, but don’t let that deceive you into giving up hope. As Bill Mahr said today, the left has moved to the center, and the right has moved into a mental institution. Do we really want to get dragged EVEN FURTHER to the right?!

We no longer live in the days of the Rooseveltian progressive Republican, but we can learn from the successes of the past if we just take the time to look at them.

Let’s look at the claim that is often made when someone on the left mentions real reform, especially on that touchy issue of “governing.” You know, spending money to run the government so that we can HAVE a government. Is it really so utopian to say that we should be able to provide a decent standard of living for every person in America? Actually, if you look at the numbers it is not far fetched.

Now, I live in an expensive place. I live in the heart of the best part of Los Angeles. Our family income is around $200,000 a year, which provides a very good standard of living. I, however, am the exception. If you take the total average GDP of our country and divide it by the total average population you get the per capita average of what we produce. It turns out this average is around $46,500 per year. That’s not super fantastic, but it’s fairly good, and that’s without accounting for people who might take up quite a bit fewer resources in a year, like children under the age of ten. I would think we could provide a decent standard of living for every person in this country, wouldn’t you?

Well, one problem is that we have a lot of people who are just obscenely wealthy. Not that I blame them, all the time. Some of them I’m sure are very nice, give lots to charity, and all the rest. However, wouldn’t it be nice if there was an all encompassing service that would take care of allocating this extra wealth for them? Well, the government can do that, if it is transparent, fair, and we all work a little to make sure they stay that way.

Taxes are not a bad thing. We need taxes. Without them we would have not government at all. We need the government to organize projects that we all need that individuals cannot organize for themselves. We need roads, bridges, public transportation, schools, police forces, firemen. Without taxes we would have none of these things. So should people making above $250,000 a year really be paying into this system less just because of a claimed crisis? The crisis won’t make it unnessary for us to have a running government. Can we afford to sacrifice the benefit that should be gained by everyone in favor of a slightly greater gain for a few? Even wealthy people need roads upon which to drive their solid gold sports cars. Would they be in favor of developing a system in which you could choose to not pay in, but in exchange you would receive no benefits? I think such a system would ultimately leave them out in the cold. They depend on the system as much as the poor person. They just don’t seem to realize it. I wonder why.

Let’s look at another problem. I call this “Not Seeing the Graph Syndrome.”

We did an experiment in my sixth grade science class where the teacher had us split in groups, and each group had to run a fishing company. We were all given the same amount of money, and this curious chart that showed a shape kind of like a hill with amount of fish on one axis, and date on the other. I really must assume all the other groups didn’t even bother with this graph, or they misread it. It was clear to me that this graph meant that beyond a certain point continuing to fish was a waste because after that point there would be no fish (it was cheapest to dock your boat). By the end, it turned out I was right. Everyone went completely broke as they fished for fish that did not exist. Our company was sitting pretty with our boats docked, and waiting patiently for the game to end.

I think this applies a lot in life, where even when the right answer is staring people in face they just can’t see it. I’m not sure why. However, I found this “science experiment” turned into a sociology experiment as I noticed the sheer percentage of the students who utterly failed to get the right answer because they didn’t even bother to look at it. Basically, we were told the answer and asked to repeat it. Why was this so hard to do? Unfortunately, we do this collectively as a society all the time with disastrous consequences, like overfishing.

I think we could all learn a lot from being shown how foolish we are before we do something really stupid. I like to hope the other kids in the class learned that they need to read the graphs they are given in life if they want to succeed.

To conclude let’s take a brief look at the word OVER.

Many problems seemed to be caused by excess. A lot of words associated with that have a negative connotation, and also have “over” in common; overconsumption, overpopulation, overfishing, overworking, etc. Moderation and balance are the keys to happiness, and yet sometimes we like to get overstimulated. However, overstimultation may be fun in the short term, but wait a little and it’ll make you sick and miserable. Perhaps if we look at the graph, look at the past, and really look at the world we will find the right graph, the right path, the path to sustainable happiness. All we have to do is look. The answers are right there in front of us. Like all living things the world provides for us the resources we need. We have the sun to give us energy; let’s use it’s energy more efficiently! We have water for us to drink, and bath in, let’s keep it clean and free of toxic chemicals! We have plenty of food if we just use a little common sense in our farming. We’ve got to stop mistreating animals. We’ve got to stop preventing natural processes like biodiversity. Right now we don’t have the answers, and until we really look to nature to provide them we’ll be hopelessly lost. It’s like we decided to create our own assignment and hope against all odds the teacher would accept it. It looks like we’re in for a failing grade if we don’t redo the assignment according to what the teacher wanted. 

Something I Haven’t Seen in a While

     The movie, “A Dog of Flanders,” (1999, Kevin Brodie), isn’t so much about a dog as it is about a little boy named Nello. Nello is extremely poor, but dreams of becoming a great artist like his idol, the famous painter, Rubens. He lives with his grandfather, as his mother has passed away, and he does not know his father. His best friend is the daughter of a Miller, who is very concerned about poverty, and tries his best to encourage his daughter to seek less company with Nello. On the face of it the story is a bit charming, but it is probably better suited for a ten year old audience than for adults. There is a bit of a twist at the end, but it seems a bit silly and overblown.  I liked this movie when I first saw it. I was quite a bit younger than I am now. I think I somehow overlooked the flaws I found in it upon a repeat viewing. The biggest flaw is that while it seems clear that the writer was trying to make Nello a bit insecure, as well as kind, he comes off more as a moron in some places. Near the end of the film he goes out into near blizzard conditions, by himself, with little weather appropriate attire after having been invited to stay, and told not to go, by Alloise’s Mother. If I had been her I would have tied him up to make him stay. In any case, while Nello may be good at drawing and painting he’s a total idiot when it comes to basic common sense and survival skills. I just didn’t feel too sorry for him when the lack of these important traits caused him problems. I felt more sorry for the other people around him who had to take care of him. So overall, the movie is okay, but it fails to hit the correct note of sympathy when it comes to the main character, because of his blandness and general haplessness. Even a kid should know not to go out into a snow storm, alone, especially when he’s just been told by an adult who he knows cares for him, that he should stay with her.

Some Other World

I think we've got no choice other than to assume that Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, and many other people in support of the big power companies like BP, are not in fact human beings. If they were human beings they would be concerned that our air and water are being polluted beyond repair, and that we are indeed now capable of making the Earth unihabitable for humans. In fact, it seems to be their ultimate plan to make the Earth unihabitable for humans. So... I guess they are actually space aliens that came from a planet somewhat like Venus, and they want to clear the neighborhood. I guess just Venus wasn't enough for them. Maybe we should offer to send them to Venus, and provide whatever resources necessary for them to peacefully settle there, in exchange for not continuing to support policy that will make our planet unihabitable for all its native species of flora and fauna.
Here's a few things to watch out for:
Drilling for Oil
Fracking/Drilling for Natural Gas
Any legislation purporting to create jobs at the cost of the cleanliness of the environment.

It's not a myth. It's not 100 years away... these problems EXIST NOW!
PLEASE! WE ALL LIVE ON EARTH! WE ARE ALL HUMANS! WE'VE GOT NO WHERE ELSE TO GO! DON'T LET THEM TELL YOU OTHERWISE!

To quote Elton John,
"You stare through a tunnel of
Solid wall that should be broken down
And you can't see the field of green
Has been turned into a raging battleground
And you'll live with the consequence
Tell me why don't you understand
You'll destroy all the love that's been created
Be a miser with an empty hand
And it's all such a simple thing
Changing everything
Listen to the one who brings all this love to you

Some other world, some other world, that's where you live
Some other world, some other world, that's where you live
Don't you care, stop and think about us and what you feel
I'll be there, don't you cut yourself off from what is real
Don't live in some other world
You don't live in some other world


There's a boat bound for paradise
If you hurry you can ride it back
'Cause once the bait hits the water
It don't take long 'till the sharks attack
Oh but it's all such a simple thing
Change is everything
Let me be the one who brings all this love to you


Some other world, some other world, that's where you live
Some other world, some other world, that's where you live
Don't you care, stop and think about us and what you feel
I'll be there, don't you cut yourself off from what is real
Don't live in some other world, in some other world
Oh you don't live in some other world, in some other world
Got to stop living in some other world


Let me help you with a change of mind
And it's all such a simple thing
Changing everything
Listen to the one who brings all this love to you


This is our world, not some other world
You don't live in some other world
Live in our world, not some other world
You don't live in some other world"

"And now for something completely different!"

I'm feeling a bit blue. Yes, I feel blue. Blue is the color of the Democratic Party in this country... I wonder if that is why they seem to sink into a weird sort of subdued... I'm not sure what to call it when they refuse to push back, even, and/or especially when people want them to. Blue is the color of sadness, true, but it is a color of confidence, calm strength, peace. It is a cool color.

I voted for the first time today. I felt happy when I voted, all Democratic...

But what about red? The color of the GOP is red... red to me speaks of anger, passion, violence, the extreme. Do we really want a country that is all red? Mostly red? Red... as an artist I know I'd rather have blue pigment spilled on me than red. Red is extremely difficult to get out. Red sticks... red runs... red stays on your fingers long after you've finished with it, and you almost wish you'd just avoided it.

Red doesn't make me happy... not unless it is the passion of love. But what does the GOP love? I don't know. They will hardly tell us. The Democratics say that they love certain things... though I think they need to be a little more strong, and a little less calm and moderating at this time. There is a difference between compromise and allowing yourself to be repeatedly stabbed. Yet, still the GOP likes to tell us passionately what they do not like. They don't like the government. That seems clear. Some of them will actually say they do want anarchy.

I have this to say; experience anarchy and you won't like it, and in any case it doesn't last long. Humans will never fail to organize into a hierarchy no matter what the situation. Once that hierarchy is formed, government is born. You could take five total strangers and put them on a deserted island. They would probably form a hierarchy in about ten minutes to an hour...

So... as for color theory... we have a choice. Do we go with red? Do we like their passion at the expense of getting so caught up that we allow ourselves to fall prey to those who wish to use our clouded minds for their own short gains?

Do we go with blue and hope they will finally stand strong, take a bit of a jump and push red back a bit?
But a little red goes a long way... will blue be able to prevent red from running amuck? They start to think maybe they shouldn't try...

Well, I haven't given up yet, and I don't intend to. Blue, hold fast to the solid ground on which you stand and don't give red an inch when they spill their passion to you like so much smoke, masking your path forward. Don't let the smoke get in your eyes. The ground before you is SOLID! You WILL make it through if you stay together, hold on tight, and remember that TOGETHER WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.

You're so... just what I needed during a stressful week!

                                        You’re So Cupid (2010, Directed by John Lynde)

            A cute, fun, romantic comedy, this movie is good when you’re in the mood for something light, upbeat, a little funny, and of course sappy and predictable, but not in a bad way. The twist is kinda fun, although forget trying to figure out how/where it relates to mythology or Shakespeare, though at first you’ll think you’ve entered into a new twist on a classic. Be prepared for a little stupidity, and some serious misrepresentation of what a dance at a normal high school looks like, and you’ll be ready to kick back with a sweet treat and settle into this wonderfully sugary chick flick. It may not be the deepest film, but when you’re not in the mood to watch anything but a fluffy, fun comedy, this movie will certainly satisfy your sweet tooth, without giving you a sugar high. I recommend this for those nights when you’re longing for something predicatable, but not boring, and you can’t handle anything even as serious as a Disney animated feature. I was in that mood when I watched it, and I felt totally sastified by the end. It delivered on not only not being boring, but it wasn’t overly sweet, or overly Hollywood. I especially liked the fact that I didn’t know any of the main cast really well. This movie is not packed full of celebrities, and it is refreshing to see some new faces in an otherwise so familiar feeling film.

            Overall, it’s got a stupid title, but this movie is not what it appears at first glance, or maybe it is, but that’s what makes it good. 

Jack... this movie isn't...

                                                            Jack

            The film, “Jack” starring the talented Robin Williams, is a heartwarming, but also somewhat heartbreaking film about a boy who ages four times as quickly as the usual human being. Williams is almost perfect in portraying the child mentality of the character, who in all other ways looks like a normal forty year old man, instead of a ten year old boy. This film kept me interested throughout, and I recommend it for anyone who enjoys to think. It has it’s fun moments, and a few gross moments, but it retains a respectful tone for the overall story which is inspiring and heart wrenching at the same time. It is wonderful to see how different a person can be, and still find meaning in life, as well as companionship. Probably the most saddening scene is when the students in the school Jack attends, after having begged his parent’s to let him go, are assigned to write about what they want to do when they grow up. Jack writes on his paper the number 28 and multiplies it by 4, the answer being 112. He says, “What do I want to be when I grow up? Alive.”

            By the end of the film Jack has made everyone around him see that what he wants most is just to live. We all spend so much time thinking about what we can do to prevent ourselves from aging, and dying, that sometimes we forget to appreciate the moment. In the end all we really have is the present, and if we don’t seize it, it will go by without a second thought. This movie well embodies the message of “carpe diem” and effectively conveys the story of this remarkable person with respect as well as humor and fun.

            Overall this film is probably not best for little children, although older children may connect to it on some level. I think it is probably best suited to a slightly older audience, who will appreciate the subtle and complex messages about life, death, love, and friendship.  

First Blog, and a Terrible Movie

Olympic Failure:

            Percy Jackson and the Olympians, the Lightning Thief, is a movie that starts off with an interesting premise, but quickly degenerates into a boring mess of modernized versions of various unclearly linked Greek myths.  

            The story begins with our hero, Percy Jackson, who lives with his kind mother and abusive step father. He is struggling in school because of what he believes to be dyslexia, but it is actually his innate ability to read ancient Greek. This seems like a lame power, and it pretty much is. Although this power does come in somewhat useful a couple times his most useful power is probably his ability to heal by absorbing water. He has these powers because he is a demigod, specifically a son of Poseidon. The movie details that it is rare for a demigod to be born to any of the three brothers, Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades. However if you look at Greek mythology it was believed that none of these gods had any problems sleeping with mortals so this comes off as confusing.

            Actually, this movie’s biggest flaw is that it struggles in the area in which it should shine. I felt it should have stuck true to the feel of the hero mythology without going out of it’s way to throw in references to anything and everything from various hero myths. For example, although it is clear that Percy is meant to be identified with the hero Perseus, he ends up fighting a minataur, which in mythology was fought by Theseus. Other elements taken not from the myth of Perseus include; meeting Chiron the centaur, fighting a hydra, encountering lotus eaters, fighting a fury, and traveling into the underworld.

            Also I found it strange how the characters in the movie knew vastly less about Greek mythology than I did. It took them ages to figure out what kind of monsters they were fighting. Percy was especially hopeless as he made the classic error of trying to kill the hydra by chopping it’s heads off. This incident made him look like a fool. All the events that referenced specific myths seemed forced, and the movie also committed the cardinal error most movies encounter when trying to portray Hades. Hades just comes off like Satan in this film, which completely undermines any respect I might have had for it trying to use Greek mythology in a new way. Both Hades and the Underworld in the movie look more like Satan and Hell than really ought to be tolerated by anybody with a decent background in Greek mythology. Overall though the movie had a good beginning, which was well paced, introduced all the important elements of the story, and captured my interest at the start, in the end it failed to produce little more than a shoddy, mangled, tedious re-hashing of myths I already know so well I could recite them better than the characters.

            This movie ultimately fails because it falls into a straight re-telling of specific myths without adding anything truly novel to them, while at the same time straying so far from the core of Greek mythology that it becomes a painful exercise in finding inconsistencies for fans of Greek myth, and will confuse those not familiar with the source material.