Michael Jackson Verdict: Innocent?

Posted on June 1st, 2005 in Commentary by EngineerBoy

So, Michael Jackson has been found innocent of all charges in his most recent court fight. As this drama has unfolded it has all smelled very fishy to me. The family was just a bit too questionable, for example, and had a history of grifting and shady dealings. Witnesses kept flip-flopping on their stories. The mother was quite a freaky subject on the witness stand. It kind of felt like the prosecution was supposed to fail.

Hmmm. That sure has the ring of truth to it, doesn’t it?

I mean, why would the prosecution go after such a high-profile, and hitherto untouchable celebrity like Michael Jackson when they would have to build their case on such a shifty foundation? It seems ludicrous, in retrospect, as if the final outcome was pre-ordained by the very fabric of the prosecutions case, which was the accuser and his family.

Well, bear with me for a moment and open your mind to an alternate theory.

What if Michael Jackson and/or his people staged this entire thing, with the prosecutors being unwitting/unwilling pawns?

Think about it for a minute. Here is Michael Jackson, whom I think we can all say is an indisputable freak. However, he has never been successfully convicted of any kind of freaky crime. Yes, there are rumors that he has paid off past accusers to silence them. But why didn’t he just do that here? I mean, I think we can all stipulate that this family would have loved nothing more than to score a few quick million from MJ and slink off into the night to blow it all raising emus or something, right?

Why did he choose to stand and fight this time? Why did he decide to allow the sordid details of his freaky existence to be dragged out into the light, confirming to most of us just how bizarre he really is? Why not just pay these people off? I find it difficult to believe that they would not have taken a cash payment. Did MJ finally decide to stand up for himself against false accusations? Or did he do something else? Did he choose to damn all his accusers with the faint praise of his current accusers? Think about it for a minute.

Michael Jackson (or his talking heads) can now point to these accusers as unquestionable rip-off artists who brought false claims to the public. They can then easily spin this to defuse any future claimants, and to discharge the built up negative static electricity of previous claims.

“See, Mr. Jackson has been set upon by money-grubbing liars, just like we told you.”

I think that a distinct possibility is that Michael Jackson bided his time and finally picked an opponent he knew he could beat, in the hopes of quelling some of the negative publicity and preventing future accusers from coming forward, based on their fear of suffering the same fate as the current scumbag family.

Think of it as a team of oil rig fighters, who actually blow out the rig fires by exploding dynamite in the middle of the conflagration. Or think of a team fighting a forest fire, who set controlled containment fires to try to subdue and control the out-of-control wildfire. It’s not exactly intuitive to think that something so destructive can have a positive effect, but I think it’s certainly possible that this is exactly what happened in the current Michael Jackson trial.

Believe and Belong: American Politics, Religion, and Sports

Posted on May 9th, 2005 in Commentary,Politics by EngineerBoy

I consider myself an impartial observer of politics, religion, and sports. I don’t stake my belief system on any particular political party, deity, or team. I also don’t believe that my beliefs are right and other beliefs are wrong, but I do believe that my beliefs are right for me. There are certain philosophies which I categorically reject (e.g. terrorism, straight-ticket voting, designated hitters), but for the most part I am tolerant of other’s beliefs and do not think they are idiots for not seeing things my way (even though many are).

And from my lofty perch of impartiality it appears that American’s views on politics, religion, and sports are morphing into one giant pep rally. People label themselves and then adopt the trappings of their self-imposed pigeonholing. One says, “I’m a Conservative, Catholic, Red Sox fan” and you can just visualize almost all aspects of that person. How they dress. What they say. Where they live. What they eat. Whom they vote for. Which news network they watch. Etc.

Another says, “I’m a Liberal, Unitarian, soccer fan” and you can, once again, grok the gestalt of this individual.

On the one hand, I applaud people for being able to so narrowly define their views. I see good and bad most places, and can usually see the merits of both sides of an argument, and so find myself in a perpetual state of re-evaluating my personal philosophies. It’s very confusing, often tiring, but ultimately invigorating. So on the other hand, I find it difficult to understand how people can adopt a canned set of views and then go through life without constantly questioning themselves.

The World Is Grey

I’ll give you an example of a hot-button topic: capital punishment. Now, from a philosophical perspective I am both for and against capital punishment. How, you say, can you be both? Well, first of all because I reject the polarized views espoused over this issue in America. I am for capital punishment because there are times when a crime is so heinous and the proof is so incontrovertible that nothing short of execution is a fitting punishment. However, I’m also against capital punishment because the fallible nature of humans means that sometimes innocent people are executed, which is unconscionable.

I’ll use two hypothetical examples to explain. In the first, picture a man who is so angry with the boss that recently fired him that he pockets a gun and drives to his bosses house to confront him. The boss ends up shot dead, but there are no witnesses. The fired man says that they exchanged angry words and he pulled the gun, but then changed his mind and tried to leave. He then goes on to say that at that point his former boss attacked him and tried to take the gun away, and in the ensuing struggle the gun went off accidentally, killing his former boss. In this instance I wholeheartedly disagree with the death penalty, as there is no proof of what happened. Yes, he was angry, took a gun, and confronted his ex-boss. But there really is no way to know what really happened.

In the second example, a man puts on a flack jacket, loads up his car with a couple of rifles and a lot of ammo, drives to a tall building, climbs up onto the roof and begins randomly shooting (and killing) people in the streets below. This goes on for an hour, until the police can locate and corner the man, who drops his rifle and puts up his hands in surrender. In this case he is clearly the shooter, clearly premeditated, no question of identity or motive, no possible forensic or legal tricks to allow him to wriggle out of the charges. In this case the man clearly should be put to death.

However, death penalty cases are rarely so clear cut. Hence my statement that I am both for and against it. The fact that people have turned this into a Liberal vs. Conservative issue oversimplifies the complexity of the problem.

Patella Twitching

Another example is the movement afoot to “reign in activist judges” by removing lifetime appointments and/or using some other methods to make judges accountable to “the American People”. However, the entire purpose of the judiciary system in America is exactly and precisely to have judges who are NOT able to pressured politically, and who are NOT required to answer to “the will of the American People”. That’s called “checks and balances”, if one were to remember one’s GRADE SCHOOL teachings. However, a large percentage of self-described “conservatives” are backing this movement, seemingly without a second thought to the fact that it completely destroys one of the great founding principals of our country.

There is also the example of a movement afoot to implement a new tax system, such as flat-tax, national sales tax, or value-added tax (VAT). There is a hue and cry from the self-described “liberals” that such a tax would be “regressive”, meaning it would punish the poor and middle class with an unfair burden of taxes. However, the current tax system is so Byzantine and opaque that only upper-income folks can actually work the system to their advantage, meaning that the rich are always able to find loopholes in the existing system that skew reality so that it has no relation to published tax tables. A national sales tax that exempted basic necessities (medicine, rent, utilities, unprepared food, etc) would be unavoidable by all, however, and would allow lower- and middle-income folks to survive with little taxation on the basic necessities of life. The wealthier folks, however, will blithely pay the sales tax on their luxury purchases, as will criminals (who don’t file tax returns, but do buy over-the-counter goods and services). So the “regressive” argument seems like nothing more than the beating of a partisan drum for no good reason.

Team Spirit

In fact, all of the pontificating, boasting, and arguing in America today seems to me to be melding into a strange type of “Team Spirit”, where people’s political and religious personas are shaped by the “team” they choose to support, rather than on what the person actually thinks and believes. I always root for my favorite sports teams, and think they’re going to win (be right), and always look for favorable signs and trends, and disparage the opposing teams, and complain about the officiating, and feel elation or pain with each win or loss, and never think to question my devotion to the team, because they’re my team, and I love my team and support them, even when they lose (are wrong).

But I do all that because sports is, ultimately, meaningless. It is simply a pastime, an enjoyable diversion from real life. But religion and politics are important. They are a part of real life. They deserve and require deep thought and evaluation. There is no dogma that is always right or always wrong, and choosing one side without contemplation is simply taking the easy way out. However, I think that the powers-that-be are going out of their way to foment partisanship instead of critical thinking, because it’s easier to get people excited about a catchy slogan and an appealing spokesperson than it is to get them to read, evaluate, and understand a position paper or plan for dealing with real problems. It’s also easier to get people excited by pointing out the failings of their opponents and then uniting supporters against a common enemy.

But, unfortunately, our common enemy is blind faith. Faith that the people who say the things we want to hear will actually end up doing the things we want them to do. Faith that the people leading the cheers actually have the greater good as their goal. Faith that people who tell us things we don’t like to hear are wrong rather than just the bearers of unpleasant, but accurate, truths.

So remember that breaking with the status quo of your selected flock does not equate to treason. If everyone simply accepted the pontifications of their figureheads we’d still have slavery, women wouldn’t be able to vote, and nobody would be able to drink. Not even at a baseball game, and that would be positively un-American…wouldn’t it?

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (*½)

Posted on May 4th, 2005 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

Oh, what might have been. Great source material, big budget…pretty good casting…fair acting…somewhat lazy directing…un-involving characterizations…completely unfunny script…no sign of the wit and humor of the source…all this equals a complete waste of time and money.

Where to begin? Poor Sam Rockwell, perfectly coiffed and costumed as Zaphod Beeblebrox, chewing up the scenery as befits the character. But with no script he’s like a toothless abominable snowman, all sound and fury signifying nothing. Martin Freeman, very everyman-y as Arthur Dent, but his blandness should be contrasted against a backdrop of adventure and excitement, but it isn’t, so he’s just boring. Zooey Deschanel as Trillian is…transparent. Mos Def as Ford Prefect is…struggling with and without his accent. Alan Rickman as Marvin the depressed robot is just whiney. John Malkovich (Humma Kavula) and Helen Mirren (voice of the computer Deep Thought) are just wasted in their semi-cameos.

The effects are clean and crisp, but unimaginative and unoriginal. It looks like they took Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and The Fifth Element, put them in a blender and then poured the whole thing over Galaxy Quest. It may be that we’ve reached the saturation point where original and creative space films are no longer possible, but I doubt it. It just feels like a lazy, slapdash amalgamation where everyone assumed that since it was based on great underlying books that it would somehow all work. It doesn’t. The producer has no clothes.

The story just lays there. It’s unexciting and un-involving. I think a mistake was made in that the creators of the film looked at the books and thought that their success was based on the actions of the characters, when in fact the books are so wonderful because of the subtle absurdity and wit of the characters and situations. The books are about the adventures of Arthur Dent in space in the same way that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is about the adventures of King Arthur and his quest for the grail. The quest is a backdrop for all the silliness. In the movie version of Hitchhiker’s Guide, the adventure *is* the story, rather than being the backdrop.

So, yawwwn, another big-budget, soul-less, overblown, saturation-marketed, franchise-ruining movie has been made by Hollywood. I really don’t know why I expected anything different.

Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (**)

Posted on May 2nd, 2005 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

I don’t know what movie the critics have been seeing that is causing them to give positive reviews, but it’s not playing in Houston. George Lucas has finally completed his hexilogy, and it’s going out with a whimper. Actually, that’s not true, as a whimper would have more emotional depth than exhibited by Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman in total in all of their scenes in all of these films. I cannot believe the horrible woodenness of both performances. I cannot believe the horrible flatness of the script. Actually horrible. The scenes with Christensen and Portman are painful to watch…physically painful.

In fact, the only actors who acquit themselves well in this one are Ewan McGregor, Yoda, and the lizard that McGregor rides on one planet. Chewbacca isn’t bad, but he only has a couple of groans. Samuel L. Jackson has never looked comfortable for one second in his role as Mace Windu. The guy playing the Emperor isn’t bad, but his character is just too over the top to be actually scary.

The special effects are practically flawless, but in this film that’s like saying your accountant has figured your taxes precisely correct to the penny. Yes, his figure is very accurate, but it still doesn’t take the sting out of your tax bill. And this film is very taxing. There are a couple of good scenes, and they all are action-based. The scene where Yoda casually shrugs a couple of Imperial Guards (tall dudes in red outfits) away generated belly laughs, and his duel with the Emperor is suitably dramatic.

Also, the final showdown between Obi-Wan and Vader (he takes the name before he takes the mask) is not bad, but Obi-Wan suffers from the same fatal flaw of all good guys in all action movies in that when he has his arch-enemy down and defenseless he doesn’t kill him. He could have used his little toe to push Vader into a lava flow and end all the melodrama, but he doesn’t. Oh well, I guess they’re planning a sequel or something.

Speaking of the entire series, here is my ranking of the Star Wars movies, in order from best to worst:

  1. Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (the first one made)
  2. Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi (the third one made)
  3. Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back
  4. Spaceballs
  5. Troops
  6. Hardware Wars
  7. Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (the subject of this review)
  8. Any random kid waving an empty cardboard wrapping paper tube or laser pointer while making noises like a light-saber and/or Vader breathing
  9. Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace
  10. A RoboSapien sitting in its box on the shelf at Toys R Us
  11. C-Span
  12. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones

So, Episode III is better than I and II, but that’s like saying Kate Jackson was the best actress on the original Charlie’s Angels…it may be true, but so what?

All that being said, one must still see this movie. Lucas does have a grand vision in spite of the fact that he took his eye off the ball for these last three films. But the story itself is still grand and operatic, and we do get to see the birth of Darth Vader, black suit, mask, and tortured breathing. The fact that Lucas makes this birth unexciting should tell you everything you need to know. Yes, you need to see the birth of Vader, but it should have been done better. Much better.

Unleashed (***)

Posted on May 2nd, 2005 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

So we knew a little bit about this film from the trailers. They showed the Jet Li character being led around, docile and downcast, wearing a neck collar that, once removed, unleashed him as an ass-whupping juggernaut. Jet Li is lead around by Bob Hoskins, an upper-mid-level loan shark whose method of collection is “pay or the collar comes off”. Danny the Dog (Jet Li) lives in a cage beneath the floor of Hoskins’ office, eats cold canned spaghetti, and cherishes his few childhood talismans that remind him of…something…his childhood, maybe, but he can’t really remember. But something good, that much he knows.

Then one day his boss crosses the wrong people and the car carrying Danny and his boss is riddled with bullets by the enemy. Danny survives and ends up at the doorstep of Morgan Freeman’s character. Freeman is a blind piano tuner with a teenage daugher studying in London. Together the father and daughter show Danny the first real kindness in his memory, and Danny starts to regain his human-ness.

But Danny’s old boss didn’t die in the hail of gunfire, and wants his “pet” back. That’s the general premise of this film, which is equal parts testosterone and estrogen. The fighting and action are top-notch, with most/all of the acrobatic moves at least being possible under the laws of physics, if sometimes improbable (meaning no Matrix/Crouching Tiger fantasy fighting…yay!). But the non-action story is also done very well, bordering on being a tear-jerker.

I think that this amalgamation of styles is one reason for the mixed reviews of this film. The action fans don’t want to get all bogged down in plot, pathos, and character development, and the chick-flick fans don’t want all the violence, killing, and cruelty. But the truth is that the film mixes the right amounts of both into a very interesting final product.

Morgan Freeman is at his most Morgan Freeman-y, which is a good thing, and Jet Li actually seems to belong on screen in the same frames as Freeman, which means his acting has improved considerably in this film. My understanding is that the directly sent Li to acting school for a couple of months prior to filming and let me tell you, it helps.

But the real scene-stealer in this film is Bob Hoskins as the bad guy. He portrays a character who is tough, smart, slick, and even sometimes deep, but ultimately evil. His performance alone would be enough to see the film, but when added to the rest of the story Hoskins makes this a must-see film.

The Terry Schiavo Tragedy

Posted on April 8th, 2005 in Commentary,Health and Fitness by EngineerBoy

Terry Schiavo passed away recently, 13 days after having her feeding tube removed. Depending on who you ask, one of the following is true:

Terry Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state for over a decade, and prior to her demise she expressed (on multiple occasions) her wish to never be kept alive as a vegetable.

-or-

Terry Schiavo has been suffering from an untreated bout of reduced consciousness that could have been treated if only her husband would have spent her settlement money on it.

However, if you track the timeline of this case and include the relevant public information, one thing becomes clear, and that is that nothing about this case is clear. As far as I can tell from the public record, every single doctor that has directly examined Terry Schiavo, including dispassionate, court-appointed doctors, have confirmed the medical diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. However, a handful of other doctors, some also dispassionate, have said the exact opposite, or at least indicated that her condition should be re-evaluated before a final diagnosis is made, basing their conclusions on the available medical records and videotapes.

Ah, Those Videotapes…

Family members have reported that Terry Schiavo responds to them, smiles, tracks movements with her eyes, and even tried to speak when her feeding tube was removed. The news networks have shown (ad infinitum) the same 2-3 minutes of videotape showing Terry’s mother kissing her and holding balloons in front of her, and Terry smiling and tracking the balloons with her eyes. When I first saw that videotape I was stunned that anyone could think she was vegetative. However, if you look deeper at all the available video evidence, what you find is that even though her parents have had decades to videotape her and show her being aware and interacting, that one video clip is the only one I can find in the public record. However, there are also significant other medical videotapes of her examinations, showing her making the same faces and eye movements, but not in response to any of the stimuli in the area.

Many of the talking head doctors on the news, as well as those that have examined Terry Schiavo, have stated that her smiling, head movements, and eye movements are simply involuntary reflexive reactions and are not based on external stimuli. There are videotapes (which have been shown on the news, but only rarely, as they are not “controversial”) showing doctors clapping in her ears, talking to her, stroking her cheeks, shining lights, moving colored objects, etc, while all the while Terry Schiavo sat there making smiles and grimaces and head movements, but not related to any of the attempts to get her attention. They appeared random. In fact, in the context where they movements were not related directly to anything, they appeared to be a bit spastic. Which is exactly what one would expect from someone in a persistent vegetative state.

So, the Inescapable Conclusion Is…

Based on all of this, one can conclude without one shred of doubt that none of us in the general public is in any position whatsoever to proclaim that we “know” that Terry Schiavo’s circumstance was handled in the “right” way or the “wrong” way. Oh, we can all very easily project our own preconceptions and dogma onto her plight. We can all relate to her horrific circumstance and simply “know” that she would want what we would want. I mean, what rational person would want:

To be kept artificially alive in a vegetative state, left to slowly wither and die, with virtually no hope of recovery.

– or –

To be murdered by an activist judicial system and cold-hearted “husband”, who presume to play God with the most precious gift of all…life.

One would have to be crazy to want that, wouldn’t they?

My Opinions Are…

I, like most everyone, have definite opinions about this case. One thing that I strive to do, however, is never to proclaim my opinions as facts or my beliefs as truths. Here are my beliefs and opinions regarding the Terry Schiavo issue:

  • I believe that Terry Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state.
  • I don’t believe that Terry Schiavo ever clearly indicated her wishes regarding life support in such a situation.
  • I believe that Congress and the President acted extraordinarily irresponsibly in passing emergency legislation intended to impact this already-decided case.
  • I believe that every activist, public figure, and politician, on both sides, who inserted themselves into this fight and politicized it with their own agenda is a scumbag.
  • I don’t believe that anyone involved in this issue acted purely out of the desire to do right for Terry Schiavo, and I believe that both her parents and her husband in large part acted out of greed, spite, and their own agendas (or the agendas of the opportunistic snakes they allowed into their inner circle).
  • I believe it would have been appropriate to have one more round of brain-function tests before the final decision was made, but think they would only have shown that her official diagnosis was correct.
  • I believe that the right thing to do in this case was to stop prolonging the life of Terry Schiavo’s body.
  • I don’t believe that starvation and dehydration are a compassionate way to end the life of a terminal patient, and I believe that we should strive to find a more merciful way to allow people to die with dignity.
  • In my opinion, Michael Schiavo should have given Terry Schiavo’s body to her parents for the final arrangements.
  • In my opinion, the Schindlers (Terry’s parents) went too far in turning the tragedy of their daughter’s condition into a three ring circus.
  • In my opinion, anyone who claims to know the right way to have handled this situation is an idiot.
  • In my opinion, our adversarial-based court systems are not the correct forum to decide issues such as these — we should move towards a system of medical panels or committees charged with the responsibility and authority to make these judgments, and we should remove lawyers and legal shenanigans from such a life-and-death matter.
  • In my opinion, the only absolute good that will come out of this tragedy is a heightened awareness of this issue which will cause more people to clearly state their wishes if they are ever in a similar position.

My Final Wishes

I also think that if I were in a similar situation, I would not want my life prolonged in such a way. That is not an unequivocal statement, because this is a difficult issue and there are a lot of grey areas, even when it’s just me contemplating my own fate. I think that if I had a flat EEG I’d prefer to be allowed to die. I think that if I were in a coma, but with significant brain activity I’d prefer to be kept alive. If my condition was questionable, or didn’t quite match any of my predetermined wishes, I would prefer a panel of non-dogmatic, dispassionate medical experts to review my case. Ultimately, the basis for my personal wishes would be to be kept alive if there were a chance of recovery of consciousness and of the ability to think in abstractions and have a sense of humor. Also, by “chance of recovery” I mean not only based on the medical capabilities at the instant I am being evaluated, but also in light of potential treatments or breakthroughs that have a non-trivial chance of applying to my condition in the foreseeable future.

So, there you have it, as clearly as I can state it, my final wishes. I have agonized over how to express those wishes. I understand that the above paragraph does not clearly state what to do in all circumstances. As I wrote it I came to the realization that it would be virtually impossible for me to create an end-of-life decision matrix that I would be comfortable with. I don’t want my life prolonged if I can’t (and can never again) enjoy it. However, I don’t want my life ended too early if there is any chance that I can fight my way out of it, or that the medical community might one day soon be able to fix whatever is wrong with me. In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way I could be absolutely sure that my exact final wishes are carried out would be to somehow be available to review the facts of my own case at the time when it would be impossible for me to do so.

And so in the final analysis I find that it is difficult or impossible for me to leave a precise enough definition of my own wishes to handle all the possible medical eventualities that might befall me. And I am of sound mind and body, and I have thought deeply about it. I believe that this would be true for many, if not most, people. If one contemplates the complexities of actually putting one’s final wishes down in unequivocal words (to be used for you or against you after you have lost the ability to evaluate your own condition and express your wishes), one may find that this is a difficult or impossible task.

And if it is that difficult to codify one’s own wishes, how is it that so many of us seem to think we know what Terry Schiavo would have wanted, or what would have been best for her? In the text above I have expressed my opinions about her condition. However, I do not claim that I know best, and I certainly don’t claim that those who disagree with me are wrong simply because they disagree with me. I am ecstatic that I did not have to decide her fate, as that was a thankless task and a lose-lose proposition, and the decision-makers will never know if they decided correctly. They will never truly know what it was like inside the mind (if it existed) of Terry Schiavo during her last days. They will (rightly) always have doubt about their decision, as this case is the very definition of a judgment call.

And those of us (myself included) who watch from the wings and judge the judges and the husband and the parents should all be ashamed of ourselves, as we truly are in no position to judge. What we should all be doing is taking the tragedy of Terry Schiavo’s life and death and using it for the betterment of us all, as her case pointed out the terrible flaws and gaps in the way our medical and judicial systems handle issues involving the life and death of people who are unable to express their own wishes. In her case the system worked as best it could, but the vast grey areas left too much room for debate and dogmatism. The legacy of Terry Schiavo should be that her case was the catalyst in forcing America to face this hard issue and make the tough decisions necessary to prevent this type of media-circus, feeding-frenzy, bully-pulpit, snake-oil situation from ever occurring again.

Kung Fu Hustle (**½)

Posted on April 2nd, 2005 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

So I went into this movie with elevated expectations. It was a martial arts comedy, a combination that I am predisposed to enjoy. I’m not a huge fan of martial arts movies, but I like them well enough, and I have enjoyed kung fu comedies in the past (Rumble in the Bronx, for example). I don’t really care for kung fu films (or other films, like The Matrix) that have characters participate in physics-defying fantasy fighting. I’m all for over-the-top choreography, but I prefer my martial arts to be possible under the laws of physics, even if highly improbable.

But Kung Fu Hustle has fantasy fighting in abundance, with different characters possessing different magical “styles” of fighting. In the context of this film I was okay with that conceit, but found the actual execution to be a bit cartoonish, with no attempt to hide the CGI-ness of it all. In fact, the film seems to revel in the digitality of it all.

The story follows the conflict between The Axe Gang and the residents and landlords of Pig Sty Alley. The Axe Gang members all dress like the Blues Brothers with top hats and hatchets, and Pig Sty alley is a decrepit little almost-slum that is the feifdom of the curler-haired, constantly-cigarette-ed, housecoat-wearing landlady and her limp dishrag of a husband. Our protagonist, Sing, and his partner try a penny-ante scam on one of the Sty-gians, only to find him being protected by the quite imposing landlady.

Sing’s charade draws the attention of the actual Axe Gang, and they come out in force to seek revenge on the Pig Sty. However, it turns out that three of the Stygians are actual kung fu masters with magical powers who end up fighting off the huge Axe-ian contingent. The residents of Pig Sty Alley are surprised and grateful to the three masters, but this is only the beginning of the troubles as the Axe Gang keeps raising the stakes.

The rest of the story is pretty classic kung fu movie stuff, where our protagonist must rise up to defeat his foes and fears, and face his past. Parts of it are cute, and there are some laugh-out-loud funny moments, but overall the parts didn’t gel for me.

Also, the everpresent trailers for the film use the song “Ballroom Blitz” to great effect, but it does not appear in the actual film. What a rip-off.

The Interpreter (**)

Posted on April 2nd, 2005 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

So, this movie could have been fairly good, if:

  • One of the characters didn’t just simply announce the upcoming key plot twist well before it actually happens.
  • Sean Penn didn’t spend the whole movie trying to act like a taciturn Clint Eastwood.
  • Nicole Kidman’s character (Silvia Broome) had managed to find a barette to keep her damn hair out of her face.
  • Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman had had any actual chemistry.
  • The level of incompetence of the Secret Service wasn’t so unbelievable (e.g. Kidman’s character eludes them when she doesn’t even know she’s being followed!)
  • The writers/directors/producers hadn’t chickened out and added a token white guy to the bad guy’s team.
  • The ending and denouement hadn’t been so trite and hackneyed.

Thankfully, thankfully, thankfully we don’t have to see the two leads lock lips or fall into bed with each other. They exchange some glances that I think are supposed to be smoldering, but looked more to me like two people glaring at each other at a traffic light thinking each was cut off by the other. There is one almost-tender moment where Penn’s character comforts Kidman’s character, but she ends up taking a nap on him (but they don’t sleep together).

But overall this movie is just the same old Hollywood crap. A typical waste of three Oscar winners (Kidman, Penn, and director Sydney Pollack) who are in a story that I bet started out as an interesting script, but was morphed by the Hollywood Frankensteins into “entertainment” instead of leaving it as an actual story. Shame on Sydney Pollack for ending his eight year directorial hiatus and choosing this dreck as his comeback vehicle. Has it gotten so bad in Hollywood that the combined stick of Kidman, Penn, and Pollack can’t save a film from being homogenized, partially hydrogenated, and made shelf-stable? Or did those three simply cash in without worrying about artistic integrity? It’s sad that in today’s Hollywood it’s hard to know the answer to that question.

Anyway, I wasn’t bored by the film, but I was ready for it to be done, and I began forgetting it before I even left the theater. ‘Nuff said.

Sin City (***)

Posted on April 1st, 2005 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

When I saw the trailers for Sin City I knew that I would hate it. The trailers showed that the film contained all of my least favorite film elements, to wit:

  • Film noir, which I hate with very few exceptions
  • Gratuitous use of black-and-white, including my least favorite subcategory of “certain things are still weirdly colorful”
  • Random characters (not superheroes) who casually break the laws of physics
  • Reverse-anachronisms, such as skyscrapers being modern-day glass and steel towers, but everybody still drives an old gangster car and wears snap-brim hats
  • Incessant smoking
  • Growling voice-overs
  • Every female character is young, beautiful, armed, tough, and dressed like a slut
  • Mickey Rourke
  • Nerds romanticizing their arrested adolescence by using the term “graphic novels” when referring to comic books

The only thing that would have made this film seem like a worse fit for me is if the characters were prone to breaking out into spontaneous song. But the above list still meant that I immediately dismissed this film and made no plans to see it, and made a mental note to not only not seek it out, but to actively avoid it for the rest of my life.

But I kept hearing good things. Good reviews. Good word of mouth. Consistently good. So last night when we were heading out for an evening of a movie followed by dancing, we went ahead and decided to see Sin City.

And I have to say that it was much better than I expected (and it would have been nearly impossible for it to be worse). The movie is very gritty and violent (an understatement), and has a very comic-book feel even though it is live action. Well, it’s live actors, but virtually the entire film was shot with them acting against a green-screen, and then the sets and backdrops were added digitally. The film is a series of interconnected vignettes set in the same city, involving some of the same characters.

The strongest vignette is the one with Mickey Rourke, where his character, Marv, is a Terminator-like psycho killer with a heart of gold (really) and Jay Leno’s chin. His character teeters between sainthood and insanity (depending on if he’s taking his medication), but while his methods are sometimes extreme, his intentions are always good, even if sometimes misinterpreted. Marv has a whirlwind infatuation with a high-class call girl (off the clock) who ends up dead with Marv framed for her murder. Marv goes on a merciless, relentless mission of vengeance that is simply hypnotic. Mickey Rourke may deserve a Supporting Actor nod for this one, and I say that begrudgingly but with the highest respect for his performance here.

The second strongest vignette is the one with Bruce Willis as Hartigan, a cop being forced into early retirement by a bum ticker. But, as the cliche goes, he still has one piece of unfinished business before he goes — the kidnapping of a little girl by a sadistic child rapist/serial killer. All the cops know who the killer is, but since he’s the son of an all-powerful senator there’s nothing that can be done other than trying to rescue the victims before he harms them. But he always goes free to try again. Hartigan acts gallantly and bravely in rescuing the young victim, and for that he is rewarded with false accusations, years in solitary confinement, public disgrace, and finally…well, I’ll leave that for you to find out if/when you watch the film.

The weakest segment involves Clive Owen struggling mightily over every word in his attempts to hide his accent and try to sound noir-tough as Dwight, a wanted murderer with a new face who rides to the rescue of the local ladies of the evening. The ladies end up doing most of the dirty work as the bad guys keep getting the drop on Dwight, and he ends up being the one needing rescuing. There is one funny segment where Dwight swaps some banter with the semi-decapitated, talking corpse of Jackie Boy (a bravura turn by Benecio Del Toro).

Overall the film has moments of excitement, drama, sadness, and humor. All of the elements mesh well into a cohesive vision, and this film gave me some insight into what it is that people like about film-noir and comic books…er…graphic novels. I’ll never be a fan of either, but I very much enjoyed Sin City.

It’s Time to Ban All Public Smoking in America

Posted on March 3rd, 2005 in Commentary,Health and Fitness by EngineerBoy

If you read much of this site you may pick up on the fact that I am not pro-smoking (he understated). I was born in 1961, and in 1964 my mother quit smoking because I would not sit with her or let her hold me if she had a cigarette going. My father smoked for many more years, and finally quit by going through a program that consisted of making the rounds of a lung cancer hospice with the attending physicians, and attending the autopsies of the folks who died while you were there. He told me about a particular emaciated living skeleton of a man who sucked smoke through his tracheotomy tube. My dad attended his autopsy and said the man’s lungs looked like a couple of deflated black balloons stuffed with marbles. Too late though, as my dad died young from cancer anyway.

All my life, through my late teens, I was surrounded by people who smoked. My entire extended family had about 70% smokers, and family gatherings were a fog-shrouded stank-fest. Slowly but surely my relatives either quit or died, until now there are no smokers left. Also, starting in my teens I started refusing to socialize with people who smoked, due to the combination of the noxious fumes and the gut-wrenching pity I felt when I realized they were powerlessly trapped by their addiction and wished to quit, but could not. When I was a child, television commercials told me to smoke, and touted the various positive benefits of the different brands. Doctors and stars (like John Wayne) shilled for the tobacco companies.

Everything I Needed To Know About Smoking I Learned BEFORE Kindergarten

But even as a three year old I knew that tobacco was a disgusting and unhealthy habit, and must admit that to this day I think that *anybody* who tried to rationalize their smoking by saying they “didn’t know how bad it was” is full of baloney, as the human body tells you everything you need to know from puff one. But through a combination of mercenary marketing and peer pressure, successive generations each had a non-trivial percentage of its members enticed into the darkness of smoking. And, in the interest of full disclosure, if I am brutally honest with myself (and you), I find smoking to be a character flaw, not only then but particularly now.

Fortunately, I think we can all look around and see that it’s all over for smoking in America, except for the shouting. The places where it is acceptable to smoke in public are quickly shrinking, and we are now down to the last stand. Smokers have been forced into a strategic retreat until now the only places they can smoke are outdoors, in bars and clubs, and in the few remaining restaurant smoking sections. But that is not enough. Smoking is a scourge, a plague, and 50 years from now our descendents will scarcely believe our stupidity.

Even the tobacco companies know that it’s over, at least in the US, and are following strategies of attempting to increase consumption in third-world nations and/or to diversify their interests. A prime example is Phillip Morris, who bought Kraft Foods (yes, the cheese people) and then tried to change their name to “Altria” to hide the fact that they are death mongers who are trying to look legit. I actually cannot believe that anyone continues to work at tobacco companies, given what we know in this day and age. I sincerely hope that the tobacco companies are crushed out of existence before they can diversify enough to survive without tobacco, and if there is any justice in the world the executives who continue to promote cigarettes today will be subject to their own version of Nuremberg.

Stop the Insanity

I also think it is time for the US government to do the right thing and begin to legislate tobacco out of existence. Right now, the government seems content to simply try to tax it out of existence, but I find that strategy to be hypocritical and somewhat diabolical. The government needs to draw a firm line in the sand that says tobacco is evil and unecessary, harmful and exploitative, and set a timeline to completely eliminate smoking in America.

And I think that the first step along that path should be the outlawing of all public smoking. Indoors, outdoors, anywhere accessible by the general public or anywhere that is a workplace…no smoking. Adults should also be prohibited from smoking in enclosed spaces where children are present, including in their own homes and cars, and should be charged with child abuse if they do so. Many, many municipalities in the US have already banned public smoking, and even some countries have done so (Scotland, Bhutan, Cuba…CUBA!!!).

The reasons for an all-out ban are plentiful. First and foremost, tobacco smoke is disgusting and unhealthy and should not be inflicted on innocent non-smokers who are simply trying to live. Also, smoking tobacco introduces no benefit to society that could counterbalance its downsides. For example, many industrial plants emit noxious and unhealthy fumes, as do automobiles. But factories and cars introduce tremendous benefits to society. Could we as a society do a better job of cleaning them up? Sure we could. But it would be calamitous to shut them down until they could be made cleaner. Elimating public tobacco smoking (and dipping, which has to be the most disgusting habit allowed in public), however, causes no detriment to society whatsoever.

Also, allowing public smoking implies tacit approval of the behavior. Every pathetic huddled mass of smokers that an adolescent has to stumble through reinforces to their impressionable minds that adults smoke everywhere all the time, from their perspective. Outside the mall, outside the school, outside their parent’s workplace, restaurant smoking sections (which, you may have noticed, are almost always where the restrooms are located…that’s because the owners hope the stench of human excrement will cover the stench of smoking, or vice versa…in any case it lets them use the same air cleaners to remove the sh*tty smell from the area), bowling alleys, golf courses, the beach, the park, the softball field, the local pool, etc, etc, etc. Everywhere. All the time. That sends an indelible message to kids, who, like everyone else, are much more likely to follow the examples they see than to heed any warnings they hear.

Kill the Weed by Pulling Up the Roots

Also important is the need to put the tobacco companies on notice that it’s all over for them. Currently big tobacco is beating a strategic retreat, paying for placements of images of casual smoking in public media (movies, magazines, etc), while at the same time paying lip service to trying to stop kids from smoking. Talk about getting smoke blown up one’s skirt. They know that cigarettes will never be as ubiquitous in the US as they once were, but I’m sure they hold out hope of maintaining a core market. It is time for them to be disabused of that notion. And a ban on all public smoking will certainly send that unequivocal message.

Another reason to ban all public smoking is to give restaurant and bar owners the clout they need to enforce no-smoking policies without the need to enforce martial law over their patrons. Today, if one wishes to have a completely non-smoking restaurant or bar, one has several problems. First and foremost is that people who are addicted to nicotine are much more likely to also be compulsive drinkers, so if one attempted to enforce a no-smoking ban in an area where one’s competitors did not, ones best customers (addictive compulsives) would just head down the road where they could smoke AND drink.

Also, if a bar attempted to enforce a no-smoking policy, or even just a no-smoking night, this introduces severe logistical issues. The first is that no matter how much you promote it, the majority of your patrons are not going to know about the smoking ban. This means they will come to your establishment expecting to be able to smoke, if they are so inclined. Many may choose not to patronize your establishment, but others will be with groups or have other reasons to stay. Many, many of these will then attempt to sneak cigarettes, either by cupping it or smoking in the restroom. This means that you will have to have your staff enforce the no-smoking policy. Having been in the restaurant business myself, I can tell you that there are few people less reasonable than a drunken nicotine addict who is being denied his or her fix. These events often quickly escalate into shouting, pushing, and shoving matches, with bouncers needing to be involved resulting in disturbance for most of the patrons as well as bruised egos for the pathetic, drunken nicotine addicts.

However, if there is an all-out ban on smoking, the bar can simply call the cops and/or throw you out as if you were an underage drinker or if you were trying to snort lines of coke off the back of the toilet. There would be absolutely no way for you to claim ignorance, and the club can rightfully protest that their hands are tied. Also, they can do this freely and easily while knowing that you won’t simply take your business down the road, because the place down the road has to follow the same laws that they do.

The Greater Good

And now we come to the reason that causes the most debate. Public smoking should be outlawed for the good of the individual smokers. I can hear the howls now, about how it’s none of the government’s business what you do..blah..blah..blah. However, it is the business of government to do exactly that. It is the business of government to serve the greater good. The government tells us what to do and what not to do every day. I’ll give you a hypothetical situation. Picture the outdoor patio of an upscale restaurant. Now picture a man climbing up on his table, squatting down, releasing a trap-door in the back of his pants, and taking a dump in the middle of his table. The trap-door is engineered so that he is not exposing himself during this act. Once finished he cleans up, closes the trap-door, then sits back down the enjoy the rest of his meal. Meanwhile the stench of his excrement is wafting across the patio, turning the stomachs of those around him, and disgusting most people in the general area.

Smokers, you are no better than Mr. Trap Door. In fact, in my opinion, you are worse, because at least excrement is something natural and normal. Now, it’s ingrained in our race memory that we don’t sh*t where we eat, and for good reason, because it’s not healthy. Well, neither is your incinerated weed that you so callously blow my way on that same patio. Or movie line. Or park. Or parking lot. Or covered mall entryway. Or beach. Or golf course. Or jogging trail (yes, there’s a regular CIGAR SMOKER that infests our local running trail). Or skyscraper entrance. Or airport sidewalk.

The list goes on and on, even in this current age where I hear you smokers constantly whining about how you can’t smoke anywhere any more. From my perspective, you smoke EVERYWHERE. That’s right…EVERYWHERE I go I have to brace myself to wade through the stench of your foul, pathetic habit. As does my wife. As does my daughter. It is not right.

And it’s beyond the point of compromise or manners, as the smoking community has proven that they refuse to admit that their habit is disgusting and so have refused to voluntarily curtail it in public. So the time has come for governments and municipalities to step in and do the right thing.

« Previous Page — Next Page »