Drive Friendly – What A Great Slogan

Posted on November 20th, 2002 in Commentary by EngineerBoy

Texas has one of the all-time great highway slogans, which is 'Drive Friendly'. That really says it all. I try to drive friendly. I really, really do. I live in Houston, TX, which has some very nasty traffic. My morning commute is blessedly short, but I have, in the past, had typical suburban commutes, and still find myself regularly facing the challenges of rush hour.

I am very safety oriented – I never drink and drive, I always wear my seatbelt, I obey the functional speed limits, I pay scrupulous attention to school zones and slow to 20MPH. I am also a polite driver. If two lanes are having to shrink to one, I obey the one-from-this-lane-then-one-from-that-lane protocol. I let people out of parking lots into traffic. I slow down to give the merge-impaired a chance to get onto the freeway alive. I always use my blinker (this is also a safety thing, but I'm listing it the 'politeness' section intentionally). I watch for pedestrians, especially downtown, where Houston's drivers-who-don't-really-understand-pedestrians meet pedestrians-who-don't-really-understand-walking-across-traffic-heavy-streets.

I also work very hard to not get riled when I drive. I am an easy-going person, by nature. I'm all in favor of live-and-let-live. I understand that, while all those other drivers are just traffic to me, I am just traffic to them. I think that the best way for us to all maintain our sanity is just to….Drive Friendly.

Sneaky Pete's
But…oh my…what is it with some people? Are they egocentric, sociopathic, or both? I'll give you an example, to which all of you can relate. If you head west on I-10 from downtown, and then exit to the loop 610 going south, the exit is only one lane. And it's almost always backed up. And I, like the vast majority of folks trying to make that exit, get into the appropriate lane and wait it out. And, as I sit there, I see all the egocentric morons who slip by to my right and left, zoom up to the head of the line, and then cut into the exit lane. Granted, there may be one or two who really don't know there is only one lane. But the vast majority of drivers follow the same route every day, and know the score. But they still pull what I like to call a 'Sneaky Pete'. They somehow feel that they have the right to bypass all the other drivers and then cut into the line.

Do these people remember kindergarten, where most of us learned that it is not polite to cut in line? Do they think that none of the drivers in line have thought to do what they did? Why is it, you Sneaky Petes, that none of the other people in line do what you do? Do you think we don't have the guts? That we didn't think of it? That we don't have extremely important, urgent business to attend to? That we somehow don't possess the magical key that frees us from social convention? Do you realize that what you are doing is exactly the same as cutting in at the head of the line at Starbucks? Or at the movie theater? I've heard some Sneaky Pete's say that, well, it just enrages them to watch other people do it while they sit in line, so they go ahead and do it too. Wonderful logic. I want all of you Sneaky Pete's to try something for me: for just one week, don't do it. Stay in your lane. Drive Friendly. And then pay attention to two things. First, how the other Sneaky Pete's make you feel, and what your opinion is of them. And second, is that how you see yourself? A selfish, egocentric, sociopathic prick (or bitch, for you Sneaky Paula's)? If that's who you are, then go with it, but do it with the knowledge of just how selfish it is.

Staring Contest (not blinking)
Which brings me to my second favorite traffic gripe, which is those cars which seem to have been produced without blinkers. Please keep these things in mind with regards to blinkers:

1. Even though *you* know you are in a left-turn-only lane, that doesn't mean that every other driver at the intersection can deduce that information. Turn on your &%@$#%% blinker.

2. If you want into my lane, and you have your blinker on, I will let you in. If you try to play chicken with me without your blinker, you will lose to me and my 4WD Ford Expedition. Turn on your $^!@#@ blinker.

3. You are not omnipresent, so even if you don't see any other cars, turn on your %@$#% blinker.

4. When you are turning or changing lanes, use your blinker. It can't get much simpler than that.

Brown-Nosers
Which brings me to my next subject, which is tailgaters. I've had numerous conversations with several different chronic tailgaters, and the most surprising part to me is the sense of entitlement, and total disregard of safety, exhibited by tailgaters. If you are tailgating, and the person in front of you slams on their brakes, you are now involved in an accident. Period. No human has the reaction time to stop that quickly. Do the math: if you are traveling at 60MPH and you are five feet behind the car in front of you, you have exactly .056 seconds to react. That's about a half-second. Are your reactions that fast? If you were totally focused, then maybe (if you were also incredibly lucky, or a fighter pilot), but if you're totally focused on your precise tailgating maneuver, that means you are totally neglecting all other normal traffic observation, which also makes you a rolling merchant of death. I've also heard tailgaters say that if they follow further back, then other folks will cut into their lane. That is a sad fact, and says a lot about the Sneaky Pete's that do it, but it does not justify risking killing other drivers. So back the $%$#%@#$ off.

Salmon
So, every once in a great while you find yourself moving along in traffic, not full speed, but moving smoothly, and all the cars are maintaining a reasonable separation as they motor along. And then what happens? What happens is that some jerk feels that, since there are spaces between the cars, he must play leapfrog-lane-change to establish a 3-5mph speed advantage over traffic. So, he zooms up and tailgates the car in front of him, and then cuts over to the lane next door, usually without signaling (because if he signaled, the person in that lane might recognize what he was doing and not let him in), then zooms up and tailgates the next person, and cuts over to the lane next door, and so on. And upstream this jerk goes, just slightly faster than the rest of the traffic, but using the worst combination of tailgating and not signaling, endangering himself and all the other drivers. And for what? A net 3-5mph advantage. If that. Meanwhile he leaves a trail of near-misses, frayed nerves, and roiled traffic in his wake. Again, do you think we don't think to do it, or don't know how, or aren't in a rush? We do, and we are. But we are also trying to Drive Friendly. Why do you insist on driving us crazy? Please, just go with the ^%$$#@ flow.

Nature's Lubricant
Water, water everywhere, but jerks don't stop and think. They don't stop and think that the stopping distance on a wet road is at least double that of a dry road. And that's assuming that you don't hydroplane or skid, both of which have an excellent chance of happening if you don't have anti-lock brakes. But, even with ABS, your stopping distance will be at least double. Also, ABS won't help you if you have to perform accident avoidance maneuvering, meaning that you also have an increased chance of spinning and/or sliding sideways on wet roads. And on top of all of that, visibility is greatly reduced by falling rain and splashed up road mist.

And, when it rains, I notice that many people on the road immediately slow down and increase their following distances accordingly. But I also notice that there are also many drivers who not only don't slow down, but also take advantage of the other driver's greater separation to play lane-change-leapfrog. They actually seem angry and aggressive that traffic has slowed down, and they seem to whip across lanes with even more derring-do than normal.

Do these folks not understand physics? Friction? Momentum? Or do the laws of physics not apply to people who are in a hurry? Well, unfortunately, they do. No amount of reaction time and driving skill can make a car stop as quickly on a wet road as a dry one. Water is a natural lubricant, as you may have noticed if you've ever slipped on wet concrete or tile. It has the exact same effect on your car tires. There may be those out there who would read the above and think, yeah, I know that, but so what? I still need to get where I'm going, and I've always driven this way and I've never had an accident in the rain. Wonderful logic. They not only don't understand physics, they also don't understand probability. Well, at least Darwinian forces will someday remove morons like them from the road, I just hope they don't kill me or mine while they enjoy their borrowed time.

Road Rage
This one is a toughie, because I have to fight to keep my anger under control in traffic, myself. I try, I really try, to drive friendly. And safely. But I am faced with a constant parade of jerks and idiots who take advantage of my safety and politeness without compunction. I'd like to compunction them right in the jaw. I'm not talking about the rest of the traffic, the other folks trying to get where they're going while maintaining their dignity and humanity. I'm talking about the jerks and idiots. You *know* who you are. You tailgate, you don't signal, you swim upstream, you cause gridlock, you accelerate through yellow lights, you pull Sneaky Pete's, you park in handicapped spaces, you drive while tipsy, you drive on the shoulder, you take two parking spaces, you ignore school zones (okay, pet peeve…I drive by fancy, upscale schools, and the soccer moms in their Sequoias and BMWs and Mercedes don't even *think* about slowing down in their own $%!@#$% school zones, but I can just imagine the wailing that would occur if one of their children were tragically killed by a speeder in a school zone), you hold your cell phone while taking notes and trying to drink your Starbucks while tailgating, you treat the roads as if you were the only sentient being in existence, and the entire endeavor was a video game, and your goal was to get through it as quickly as possible, regardless of the risks or consequences.

Well, traffic involves real people, and traffic accidents involve real death. Is your everyday life so important that you can justify callously risking other people's lives every single day, just so you can shave 5 minutes off of your commute? Please redo that math, and remember to Drive Friendly.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (***)

Posted on November 17th, 2002 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

Chamber of Secrets is good, solid entertainment, and a worthy successor to the first Harry Potter film. The kids are all a year older, but that fits right into the story and seems completely natural. The story is exciting and well told, the acting is solid, and the special effects border on astonishing, even in this day and age. In fact, they are so well done that I didn’t even think to mention them until I stopped to think about the movie, and realized that I hadn’t noticed them (because they were so good).

FYI, I have not read any of the Harry Potter books, so I can’t comment on how the movie compares with the book, but Marie (who has read all the books) said that it was a faithful representation. But, from my perspective of someone not familiar with (or a fan of) the books, I can say that Chamber of Secrets stands on its own as a solid, entertaining film. You *should* see the first film first, though, to understand some of the characters and backstory, but don’t consider that a negative…I liked that this film did not try to “fill in the blanks” for those who hadn’t seen the first film.

************ SPOILER AHEAD ***********************

My one complaint/question regarding this film concerns a scene near the end. Hagrid returns to the Hogwarts dining hall, and is given a boisterous standing ovation. But he hasn’t really done anything to deserve one. My guess is that he is being cheered because a side-effect of the movie’s story is that Hagrid is shown to have been innocent of a past transgression, but it was nothing dramatic or Earth-shattering, so I’m not sure that’s what the ovation is for. If you can provide clarification, please feel free to post a response here. Thanks!

The Ring (*)

Posted on November 17th, 2002 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

The Ring could have been good, but not great. It has solid bones, but the meat is more like spam than filet mignon. Naomi Watts (who should have won an Oscar for her performance in Mulholland Drive) does a good job, as does the rest of the cast, but the material they are given, and the story/direction are uninspired and uninspriring.

Particularly underwhelming is the director’s use of Watts’ character’s son as a sort of Joely Hale Osment doppelganger. The director’s attempts to use the kid (who seems like a fine actor) to capture the chill of ‘I see dead people’ do not work, and play like parody of the Sixth Sense.

***************** SPOILERs AHEAD *********************

The story had many, many holes. For instance, answer any of these for me:

What would happen if the person who watched the videotape is not near a TV seven days later?

What would happen if they were not near a phone right after watching the video?

What is the purpose of the first phone call, if it doesn’t matter whether or not the call is answered?

Would a malevolent force know enough (or care enough) to “wait for the beep” to leave a message?

What was the purpose of the scene where Naomi Watts’ character is down the well, other than to set up the false ending?

If four teenagers watched a videotape, got a warning message via phone, then died in simultaneous yet unrelated incidents seven days later, wouldn’t the police become involved?

What art school drop-out directed that lame video?

Those are not burning questions that have occurred to me after deep ruminations on the complex message of the film. Those are forehead-slap-and-snicker-inducing gaffes that occurred to me during the film. I have a fairly balanced view of movies, in that I can usually recognize when a film is good, but just doesn’t appeal to my tastes. This isn’t one of them.

Comedian (***)

Posted on November 15th, 2002 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

Comedian tells the story of Jerry Seinfeld trying to rebuild his comedy act after retiring his classic material in one last Broadway show (see “I’m Telling You For The Last Time!”). The film is documentary-style, and also includes the parallel story of a young, up-and-coming comedian named Orney Adams.

I found the movie to be a fascinating look at the professional life of stand-up comics. At one point, another comedian asks Seinfeld how long he’s been working on his new material, and Seinfeld says four months. The comedian then asks how many “minutes” he has, and Jerry says 20. Four months work for “20 solid minutes”. All the comics seem to be searching for the holy grail of an hour of solid material, which allows the comedian to be the “showcase”. It’s very revealing to see Seinfeld unsure of himself and his material, struggling to find the right timing and weed out the bad material. Even though it is a flattering look at Seinfeld, it is not a reverential treatment.

If you like Seinfeld, stand-up comedy, or the artistic/creative process, check this movie out to see a realistic look at the life of a performer.

8 Mile (***)

Posted on November 9th, 2002 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

Well, it turns out the Eminem can act, too. He does a very solid job of playing a character not unlike himself. The movie doesn’t aspire to philosophical deepness, but it’s also not a “Spice Girls: The Movie”-type of glossy brand polishing, either. My perceptions of Eminem were based on the few of his songs that I heard, the few things I read about him in the press, and the few times I saw him on television.

My opinion of him was mixed, in that he has an interesting musical style, and some of his lyrics are creative, funny, biting, and insightful. But, at the same time, in his off-stage life he seems to be the very definition of a punk-ass moron. There are a couple of possible explanations for this dichotomy (including me misinterpreting the whole thing), but my hope is that the truth is that he is what he appears to be…a smart, creative kid from the tough side of town, who developed both a hard manner and an artistic expression that allowed him to survive and thrive, and now that he’s moving in circles that are less dangerous and oppressive, he’ll learn how to dial down the constant bravado and street attitude. My fear is that he is a semi-talented moron who is being spoon-fed by producers and will be cast aside once his 15 minutes are up.

The good news is that, if that is the case, he could certainly fall back onto acting as a career. 8 Mile was very entertaining, telling a Rocky-like Hollywood fable. In an interesting twist, the movie does not follow the expected arc of that type of film, and instead leaves us somewhere in the middle of the typical movie storyline. Eminem’s character has a test of…well, character…and shows his true mettle. The movie stops there, and does not follow his story to vindication, success, and/or world domination.

**************** SPOILERS AHEAD ****************
To give you an idea of this non-Hollywood ending, the final scene takes place just after Eminem’s character has won a rap battle at a local Detroit club. He is congratulated by his crew, and then walks off into the night to head back to his job at an auto parts manufacturing plant, where he’s asked a fellow employee to cover his shift temporarily so he could compete in the rap showdown. There’s nothing glamorous or triumphant about going back to your metal-stamping shift.

This is the same plant where, during the course of this movie, he has learned to take responsibility for his own work performance, has asked for extra shifts, and has earned the grudging respect of the line boss. I can only imagine the story meetings with studio execs wanting to add a bigger, better ending to this movie. But the Hollywood definition of a bigger, better ending would have also been shallow and false on this movie.

**************** END OF SPOILERS ****************

When this movie ended, I sat and thought about it, and about Eminem’s character. I didn’t get up and head for the exit. I leaned over to tell Marie that I thought it was a really good movie, as she had been worried that she had dragged me to something I didn’t want to see, or that I had not liked. Neither were the case. Eminem had proved to be such a conundrum to me that I was looking forward to seeing this movie and learning more. The movie didn’t make up my mind one way or the other regarding how I feel about Eminem, but it was entertaining, he was good, the story was compelling, and the whole thing ended up being points in his favor, in my estimation.

Backstreet Cafe – Highly Recommended

Posted on October 25th, 2002 in Houston,Restaurant Reviews by EngineerBoy

Backstreet Cafe is located on the Shepherd curve just south of W. Dallas  St. Prices are a bit upscale, but the ambience is unbeatable. We usually try to  go in the spring or fall, when the moderate temperatures make their patio a  nearly magical place to dine. We actually just went this past weekend  (10/11/2002), but were sadly disappointed to find that our *favorite* soup  (sherried mushroom) was no longer on the menu. We tried their new asparagus  soup, but it was extraordinarily ordinary.

As for the rest of the menu, I  had the duck spring roll appetizer, which was fantastic. We also love the  coffee-crusted steak and the meatloaf tower. They also have a good wine  list.

In summary, we still love Backstreet, but given the large selection  of quality dining in Houston, we may go less frequently now that our favorite  soup is no longer available. It’s still a beautiful dining experience in  temperate weather, and the food is certainly above average, so keep Backstreet  in mind.

The Truth About Charlie – (*)

Posted on October 25th, 2002 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

So, what would happen if director Ted Demme ate some psychedelic mushrooms, then watched ‘Charade’, ‘Mulholland Drive’, and ‘The Bicycle Thief’ (about 10 times each), and then asked a Hollywood studio exec to help him work out the finer points of artistic expression?

What would probably happen is that he’d get ill and excrete something like ‘The Truth About Charlie’.

Wow, what the heck was he thinking? Marie and I went to see this movie knowing nothing about it other than what we gleaned from seeing the trailer a few times. It looked like it could be good fun. It was good fun, but only because of the vast mother lode of mockable plot contrivances and hackneyed cinematic clichés. Marie kept having to shush me so that I wouldn’t disturb the other theatergoers, but my reaction was virtually involuntary.

Markie Mark (Mark Wahlberg): He should do his career a favor and only work in Paul Thomas Anderson’s films. He was amazing to the point of Oscar-worthiness in ‘Boogie Nights’, but in ‘Charlie’ he is a drab, generic schlub, with no facets that make us care (good or bad) what happens to him. And, with his Neanderthal forehead and furrowed brow, he looks remarkably like a constipated gorilla throughout this movie.

Thandie Newton: She makes the best of terrible, trite dialogue and contrived situations. She’s pretty darned cute and probably has good things in store for her career-wise.

Tim Robbins: Looks like he cashed the check before filming began and had nothing to gain/lose from his performance. Not exactly sleepwalking, but certainly expending only the minimum amount of effort necessary to avoid shameful embarrassment.

Rest of Cast: Ehhh.

 

The good news is that nothing blows up, and there’s not much (for Hollywood) gratuitous violence, and none of the staged Matrix/XXX/etc fantasy-fighting. There is, however, a surplus of faux-romantic Parisian vignettes, but there are no sparks between…anyone in this movie.

Reservoir Dogs (****)

Posted on October 25th, 2002 in Movie Reviews by EngineerBoy

What a great movie. We had the chance to see it again this past weekend, on the big screen at the Angelika Theater here in Houston. Yes, there is a bit more style than substance, but it has a whole lot of both. Every major cast member turns in a career-best performance, including the astonishing Chris Penn.

« Previous Page