So the Iowa City Post Office is looking to move out of their current location to a smaller building. I suppose, given the current difficulties that the US Postal Service finds themselves mired in, something like this was going to be inevitable. The Post Office downtown is a big-ass building so I could understand if they wanted to downgrade to something more compact- where and what that's going to be, they don't yet know but there are a couple of local issues that this could impact.
First and foremost is the issue of the Jail/Justice Center. Call me crazy, but I'm willing to be it's got more square footage and would be a whole lot cheaper to repurpose than building an entirely new Jail from scratch. The 'architectural aesthetic' of the Courthouse that Jail Opponents were so in favor of preserving would be preserved. The County would get bigger digs and potentially some more jail space as well (you'd have to see how many more cells you could get in there but I'm willing to bet it'd be at a sweet spot for a lot of voters- not so many that we're looking to fill beds and not so few that we're sending people to other counties.) If the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff don't jump on this, they're crazy.
Second and potentially far less likely would be a new Museum of Art for the University. If the City is looking to expand the downtown footprint southwards towards the new Riverfront Crossings District, a new Art Museum where the post office is could lead a huge push southwards. Would they wan to keep the existing building and just repurpose it? I don't know. My preference would be to build a new building that could be potentially a more modern compliment to the Courthouse across the street but the right facility in that spot could be a huge boost for the Riverfront Crossings District (which would be good for the City) and would house a new Art Museum in a prominent, centrally located place right down the street from the shiny new school of Music that's being built. I can't imagine the University would strenuously object to that notion either.
Either way, keep an eye on the local media and see what develops. If the Post Office wants new digs then suddenly there are all kinds of interesting possibilities in the air...
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
The Manning Verdict and American Hegemony
You wouldn't know it from watching the news but something mildly interesting happened today: Army Intelligence Analyst Bradley Manning was found guilty of 19 counts of espionage and not guilty of aiding the enemy at his military trial at Fort Meade in Maryland. Manning sent a virtual treasure trove of classified material about American operations to Wikileaks who promptly did what their name suggests and leaked it all over the world media.
I'm glad he was found not guilty of aiding the enemy. I think that would have set a dangerous precedent where, conceivably, any whistleblower in any level of government could be considered a terrorist or a traitor. The counts of espionage I'm far more sanguine about: after all, this guy was an Army Intelligence analyst- he had (I'm betting) to go through a fairly length process to get a security clearance and was probably fully aware of the consequences of his actions if he chose to leak classified material. You could argue that he did the right thing by leaking the information- you could say the same thing about NSA Leaker Edward Snowden- but let's not pretend what these guys did wasn't illegal. They knew they were breaking the rules. They have to accept the consequences- it's unfortunate that Manning got caught, while Snowden did not (at least from Manning's point of view, I'd imagine) but leaking classified material is a no-no. Stand on principle all you like- leak all you like- but don't expect there not to be consequences for your actions. Please, don't be that naive.
The next interesting part of this case is going to be the sentencing. I'll admit, I haven't been reading up on this as much as I should have but Manning has been put through the wringer. It'd be interesting to see how much time served he's going to get credited to his sentence. (Maybe even sentenced to time served and be done with it- but I doubt he'll get that lucky.)
But all of this raises an interesting question: are we reaching the limits of American hegemony? It's hard for me to be sympathetic to people that complain about the US Government. American citizens are easy: 'Did you vote? No? Well then, shut the f--k up, you don't get to complain.' Denizens of the rest of the world are harder. It's easy, I suppose to demonize America and by extension Americans as the big, bad, imperialistic boogeyman holding the world in thrall- but that argument too, strikes me as simplistic and rather naive. These countries have armies. These countries have economic heft and influence. What the fuck are they doing with their time? When it's functioning, the EU economic block is a bigger economy than that of America's. If civilizing behavior is what the world expects of America, it's time for Europe to pull their heads out of their asses and get to work. They've got the economic heft to be a potential counterweight to America and China, if need be- but they won't. It's far easier to be outside the tent pissing in that inside the tent pissing out.
(Or: if your governments have collectively abrogated their defense resposibilities to another country and replaced principled foreign policy with waffling, hand-wringing and economic turpitude, you don't get to complain about the hegemony you're left with!)
That's not say that I don't value the European perspective. I think Europe handles things like terrorism far, far better than we do over here. It's hard to see something like The Patriot Act ever being passed in Europe- or the TSA with it's naked body scanners. It irritates me immensely that when it comes to foreign policy, Europe is either far too willing to follow America's lead or far too unwilling to back up rhetoric with force where it needs too. (And no, I don't count Libya. If Sarkozy hadn't been in a tight Presidential race, I doubt the French would have even bothered with it. And the fact they did take the lead speaks more to the incompetence of our current administration than newly muscular willingness on their part to step up.)
Of bigger concern should be the fact that the distance between government and the governed is growing, not shrinking. Conservatives might think that's bad news for Progressives but I don't see it that way- it's bad news all around. On average, America breaks around 50% turnout for elections. Of that 50%, 51% pick a winner. So, a fraction of the electorate picks a relatively small group of people to represent us and they govern not for everybody but for the people that elected them. And it's not sane, sensible, moderate people that we're getting- nooooooooo, we're getting the shrill, hysterical ends of the political spectrum and neither one of them is exactly pleasant. People don't care because who wants to jump into the mudpit that our political discourse has become?
There's a fantastic book I keep meaning to read called Bowling Alone which details the breakdown of the traditional community in America. Things like bowling leagues, churches, the PTA- things that brought people together (to maybe talk and decide that things really suck and hey maybe we should do something about things, what do you say?) have been breaking down- and I'm willing to bet if I read the book, I'll discover that the breakdown of our community parallels the breakdown in our civic and political health.
To me, the only solution I can think of is figuring out what new community bonds can bring us together in 21st Century. I doubt you'll see a wholesale revival of bowling leagues or PTAs or whatever- but there has to be a solution. There has to be an end to the growing gap between governed and government and ultimately, only we, the governed can insist on the transparency necessary to reign in the excesses of our government. Bradley Manning, to me, isn't a hero or a villain but rather symptomatic of the growing ill-health of American democracy and by extent (since nobody else seems willing to fight global fires so far) our hegemony as well.
I'm glad he was found not guilty of aiding the enemy. I think that would have set a dangerous precedent where, conceivably, any whistleblower in any level of government could be considered a terrorist or a traitor. The counts of espionage I'm far more sanguine about: after all, this guy was an Army Intelligence analyst- he had (I'm betting) to go through a fairly length process to get a security clearance and was probably fully aware of the consequences of his actions if he chose to leak classified material. You could argue that he did the right thing by leaking the information- you could say the same thing about NSA Leaker Edward Snowden- but let's not pretend what these guys did wasn't illegal. They knew they were breaking the rules. They have to accept the consequences- it's unfortunate that Manning got caught, while Snowden did not (at least from Manning's point of view, I'd imagine) but leaking classified material is a no-no. Stand on principle all you like- leak all you like- but don't expect there not to be consequences for your actions. Please, don't be that naive.
The next interesting part of this case is going to be the sentencing. I'll admit, I haven't been reading up on this as much as I should have but Manning has been put through the wringer. It'd be interesting to see how much time served he's going to get credited to his sentence. (Maybe even sentenced to time served and be done with it- but I doubt he'll get that lucky.)
But all of this raises an interesting question: are we reaching the limits of American hegemony? It's hard for me to be sympathetic to people that complain about the US Government. American citizens are easy: 'Did you vote? No? Well then, shut the f--k up, you don't get to complain.' Denizens of the rest of the world are harder. It's easy, I suppose to demonize America and by extension Americans as the big, bad, imperialistic boogeyman holding the world in thrall- but that argument too, strikes me as simplistic and rather naive. These countries have armies. These countries have economic heft and influence. What the fuck are they doing with their time? When it's functioning, the EU economic block is a bigger economy than that of America's. If civilizing behavior is what the world expects of America, it's time for Europe to pull their heads out of their asses and get to work. They've got the economic heft to be a potential counterweight to America and China, if need be- but they won't. It's far easier to be outside the tent pissing in that inside the tent pissing out.
(Or: if your governments have collectively abrogated their defense resposibilities to another country and replaced principled foreign policy with waffling, hand-wringing and economic turpitude, you don't get to complain about the hegemony you're left with!)
That's not say that I don't value the European perspective. I think Europe handles things like terrorism far, far better than we do over here. It's hard to see something like The Patriot Act ever being passed in Europe- or the TSA with it's naked body scanners. It irritates me immensely that when it comes to foreign policy, Europe is either far too willing to follow America's lead or far too unwilling to back up rhetoric with force where it needs too. (And no, I don't count Libya. If Sarkozy hadn't been in a tight Presidential race, I doubt the French would have even bothered with it. And the fact they did take the lead speaks more to the incompetence of our current administration than newly muscular willingness on their part to step up.)
Of bigger concern should be the fact that the distance between government and the governed is growing, not shrinking. Conservatives might think that's bad news for Progressives but I don't see it that way- it's bad news all around. On average, America breaks around 50% turnout for elections. Of that 50%, 51% pick a winner. So, a fraction of the electorate picks a relatively small group of people to represent us and they govern not for everybody but for the people that elected them. And it's not sane, sensible, moderate people that we're getting- nooooooooo, we're getting the shrill, hysterical ends of the political spectrum and neither one of them is exactly pleasant. People don't care because who wants to jump into the mudpit that our political discourse has become?
There's a fantastic book I keep meaning to read called Bowling Alone which details the breakdown of the traditional community in America. Things like bowling leagues, churches, the PTA- things that brought people together (to maybe talk and decide that things really suck and hey maybe we should do something about things, what do you say?) have been breaking down- and I'm willing to bet if I read the book, I'll discover that the breakdown of our community parallels the breakdown in our civic and political health.
To me, the only solution I can think of is figuring out what new community bonds can bring us together in 21st Century. I doubt you'll see a wholesale revival of bowling leagues or PTAs or whatever- but there has to be a solution. There has to be an end to the growing gap between governed and government and ultimately, only we, the governed can insist on the transparency necessary to reign in the excesses of our government. Bradley Manning, to me, isn't a hero or a villain but rather symptomatic of the growing ill-health of American democracy and by extent (since nobody else seems willing to fight global fires so far) our hegemony as well.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
This Week In Vexillology #39
Hold on to your hats, kids because this week, we're staying down in South America and we're getting our condor on with that most equatorial of countries, Ecuador! Adopted September 26th, 1860 for national usage, the flag of Ecuador is almost identical to the flag of Colombia save the national arms that were placed int he center of the flag- and there's a reason for that.
See kids, once upon a time there used to be a country called Gran Colombia, which made up Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Venezuela, chunks of Peru, Brazil and Guyana and Ecuador seceded from the federation in 1830 to form a Republic. The 1819 flag of Greater Colombia was restored in 1860 and the similarity between the two flags has dated since then.
The yellow, blue and red of the horizontal tricolor were taken from the colors of one of South America's great Liberators, Francisco de Miranda. The yellow is the color of the federation, the blue recalls independence from Spain and the red symbolizes courage. The Arms of Ecuador at the center break down as follows: the Andean condor symbolizes bravery and liberty. The four symbols on either side of the sun above the mountain represent the months from March to May. The mountain is Mount Chimborazo, South America's highest peak, the ship at the mouth of the river (the Guyas River) represents commerce and the axe and fasces at the bottom are symbols of Republicanism.
Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for Ecuador! And remember until next time keep your flags flying, FREAK or otherwise!
Friday, July 26, 2013
David Cameron's Magic Porn Filters!
You know, whenever I hear relatives from The Motherland talk about what a useless wanker Prime Minister Cameron is and how much they can't stand the Conservative Party, I usually smile to myself and think 'man, they don't know how good they have it.' After all, the fringe elements of the Republican Party have serious questions about things like evolution and what constitutes legitimate rape. Chill out, I think to myself. The Tories are pretty vanilla compared to the real right wing nutters we have over here.
Well, I'm not thinking that anymore. Prime Minister Cameron has, in his wisdom and somehow managed to wrangle the major ISP's in the United Kingdom into forcing everyone onto a porn-blocking filter which would be automatically added to everybody's service unelss they specifically request to opt out of it. Why? It's for the kids, he says. It's censorship, say a lot of other people. (One of his own Ministers has also sounded a disapproving note and ISPs were quick to point out that the filter would block far, far more than pornography.)
Look, this is censorship, plain and simple. Child porn is already illegal (at least I'm assuming so in the United Kingdom. I know it is over here) and if you want to tack on some of the weirder, more violent porn onto that, well then fine. But constructing what might as well be the Great Firewall of China to do so? Yeah, that's not fine and hopefully there's enough of an outcry (and hopefully Nick Clegg or Ed Miliband will have enough sense in their heads to object to this as well) that this idea gets stopped before it's started. Because once it's started, it's only going to get bigger and bigger as the government decides that it needs to censor other things on the internet- for the children, of course.
I can understand feminist arguments for and against pornography- that's a debate that you could write whole volumes of books on* but ultimately this gives the British government way too much power that is way to open to abuses.
Plus, it's bound to give some Republican somewhere over here ideas. And they have enough bad ideas as it is.
*In general, I'm fairly neutral about pornography. You can only stare at flapping testicles and heaving breasts so much before it gets weird and a little boring. Nothing can really substitute a real life emotional connection with another human being when it comes to intimacy.
Well, I'm not thinking that anymore. Prime Minister Cameron has, in his wisdom and somehow managed to wrangle the major ISP's in the United Kingdom into forcing everyone onto a porn-blocking filter which would be automatically added to everybody's service unelss they specifically request to opt out of it. Why? It's for the kids, he says. It's censorship, say a lot of other people. (One of his own Ministers has also sounded a disapproving note and ISPs were quick to point out that the filter would block far, far more than pornography.)
Look, this is censorship, plain and simple. Child porn is already illegal (at least I'm assuming so in the United Kingdom. I know it is over here) and if you want to tack on some of the weirder, more violent porn onto that, well then fine. But constructing what might as well be the Great Firewall of China to do so? Yeah, that's not fine and hopefully there's enough of an outcry (and hopefully Nick Clegg or Ed Miliband will have enough sense in their heads to object to this as well) that this idea gets stopped before it's started. Because once it's started, it's only going to get bigger and bigger as the government decides that it needs to censor other things on the internet- for the children, of course.
I can understand feminist arguments for and against pornography- that's a debate that you could write whole volumes of books on* but ultimately this gives the British government way too much power that is way to open to abuses.
Plus, it's bound to give some Republican somewhere over here ideas. And they have enough bad ideas as it is.
*In general, I'm fairly neutral about pornography. You can only stare at flapping testicles and heaving breasts so much before it gets weird and a little boring. Nothing can really substitute a real life emotional connection with another human being when it comes to intimacy.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
WTF Is Up With Carseats?
This is one thing that nobody told me about. I mean, I'm aware of carseats. They're sort of a necessity for small tiny humans and we've babysat for our nieces a couple of times and they with carseats- carseats that my brother-in-law painstakingly shoved and poked and prodded into the necessary position in the back seat of our Subaru. They seemed awfully cumbersome to buckle: when you've got a two year old who may or may not be in the mood to sit still depending on what's going on in the world and/or her general mood at the time that raises the difficulty level a few notches. But up until a month ago, that was the extent of my experience with carseats.
We got the news that The Cigarillo was coming to us and then, then everything changed. I'm not one to worry about clothing- I let the Missus handle that aspect of it as usually I just get out of bed and put on whatever happens to be closest by and clean- or failing that, smells the least bad. I am not a clothes person by any stretch of the imagination. Mother Cigar would drag me kicking and screaming to shop for clothes when I was growing up and I usually ended up picking some truly hideous shirts for myself because I thought they weren't boring. (This was a long and tragic period for me that lasted into high school, when it was replaced by a weird period of using various flags as do-rags/bandanas and followed by dying my hair every color I could think of. I was... different, put it that way.)
But some spark of testosterone primordial maleness kicked me in the oxipetal when it came to carseats. I wanted a good carseat. I wanted protection. Little Man Cigarillo would ride in comfort, style and if a Panzer attempted to ram (always a possibility here in Iowa, of course. Anyone who's driven I-380 between the IC and Cedar Rapids after a decent winter storm will tell you that it looks almost exactly like the aftermath of a tank battle. Minus the smoking and burning parts) our car then by golly I wanted him not to get so much as a tickle on his little toes. Plus cupholders. A bad-ass carseat needed to have cupholders.
So, the Missus and I found ourselves cruising the carseat aisle at Target, examining the possibilities. Eventually we settled on a Graco My Ride 65 or something and lugged it back to the Subaru and then back to our Casa where it sat, unlamented in the garage for a couple of days as I put off installing it (a task the Missus designated to me, the man) as long as I could as I had a feeling that it would a gigantic pain in the ass.
That, as it turned out was something of an understatement. I'm increasingly convinced that whomever designs carseats is some kind of evil, Smurf-like sadist or alternatively, the really old bad-ass Chinese Dude (Pai Mei!) from the Kill Bill movies (because, like carseat designers, they mean well but are going to make your life a living hell as a character building lesson.) After getting the carseat out of the box, you then find the instructions. Pasted all over the instructions are big, red, scary warnings telling you in no circumstances should even attempt, not even a little bit to install a carseat until you've read every single word in this tiny, ninety page manual.
So, I did that. Then I realized on about page three that these instructions were probably written in Sanskrit of some kind. I mean, I knew I was reading English. I just wasn't comprehending the words that were on the page in front of me due to some weird, you know, thing. So I did what all people who find themselves in a comprehension-challenged situation do: I went to YouTube.
Three YouTube videos, a lot of swearing and some Chewbacca-like grunts of frustration later, I had installed our car seat. I briefly considered running into traffic when the Missus pointed out that we'd need the harnass adjusted- I really thought I was going to have to take it out and start over but I persevered and with some creative contortionism and a detailed examination of the car seat itself, I figured my way out of that problem all by myself.
I was very proud.
Needless to say, when we snagged our second vehicle, a purple (yes, purple) 1996 Chrysler Cirrus*, we got a car seat (a much cheaper one) for that vehicle as well. I braced myself for another wrestling match with a carset- but you know what? This time, everything went smoothly. I took my time, read the instructions and everything worked. I had the Missus double check and was relieved when it all went in the way it was supposed to. Apparently, once you've gotten one under your belt** they get much, much easier after that.
But still: WTF is up with car seats? Seems like in the world of technological marvels that we live in today, we should have come up with something equally as safe but a hell of a lot easier to deal with than these damn things.
I'm just saying is all.
*The new car was designated NPH for Neil Patrick Harris. If you've ever seen Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle, you'll know what the 'PH' stands for.
**Had a Nurse and a Police Officer check my car seat. And I registered that sucker on line, so no worries. I done it right.
We got the news that The Cigarillo was coming to us and then, then everything changed. I'm not one to worry about clothing- I let the Missus handle that aspect of it as usually I just get out of bed and put on whatever happens to be closest by and clean- or failing that, smells the least bad. I am not a clothes person by any stretch of the imagination. Mother Cigar would drag me kicking and screaming to shop for clothes when I was growing up and I usually ended up picking some truly hideous shirts for myself because I thought they weren't boring. (This was a long and tragic period for me that lasted into high school, when it was replaced by a weird period of using various flags as do-rags/bandanas and followed by dying my hair every color I could think of. I was... different, put it that way.)
But some spark of testosterone primordial maleness kicked me in the oxipetal when it came to carseats. I wanted a good carseat. I wanted protection. Little Man Cigarillo would ride in comfort, style and if a Panzer attempted to ram (always a possibility here in Iowa, of course. Anyone who's driven I-380 between the IC and Cedar Rapids after a decent winter storm will tell you that it looks almost exactly like the aftermath of a tank battle. Minus the smoking and burning parts) our car then by golly I wanted him not to get so much as a tickle on his little toes. Plus cupholders. A bad-ass carseat needed to have cupholders.
So, the Missus and I found ourselves cruising the carseat aisle at Target, examining the possibilities. Eventually we settled on a Graco My Ride 65 or something and lugged it back to the Subaru and then back to our Casa where it sat, unlamented in the garage for a couple of days as I put off installing it (a task the Missus designated to me, the man) as long as I could as I had a feeling that it would a gigantic pain in the ass.
That, as it turned out was something of an understatement. I'm increasingly convinced that whomever designs carseats is some kind of evil, Smurf-like sadist or alternatively, the really old bad-ass Chinese Dude (Pai Mei!) from the Kill Bill movies (because, like carseat designers, they mean well but are going to make your life a living hell as a character building lesson.) After getting the carseat out of the box, you then find the instructions. Pasted all over the instructions are big, red, scary warnings telling you in no circumstances should even attempt, not even a little bit to install a carseat until you've read every single word in this tiny, ninety page manual.
So, I did that. Then I realized on about page three that these instructions were probably written in Sanskrit of some kind. I mean, I knew I was reading English. I just wasn't comprehending the words that were on the page in front of me due to some weird, you know, thing. So I did what all people who find themselves in a comprehension-challenged situation do: I went to YouTube.
Three YouTube videos, a lot of swearing and some Chewbacca-like grunts of frustration later, I had installed our car seat. I briefly considered running into traffic when the Missus pointed out that we'd need the harnass adjusted- I really thought I was going to have to take it out and start over but I persevered and with some creative contortionism and a detailed examination of the car seat itself, I figured my way out of that problem all by myself.
I was very proud.
Needless to say, when we snagged our second vehicle, a purple (yes, purple) 1996 Chrysler Cirrus*, we got a car seat (a much cheaper one) for that vehicle as well. I braced myself for another wrestling match with a carset- but you know what? This time, everything went smoothly. I took my time, read the instructions and everything worked. I had the Missus double check and was relieved when it all went in the way it was supposed to. Apparently, once you've gotten one under your belt** they get much, much easier after that.
But still: WTF is up with car seats? Seems like in the world of technological marvels that we live in today, we should have come up with something equally as safe but a hell of a lot easier to deal with than these damn things.
I'm just saying is all.
*The new car was designated NPH for Neil Patrick Harris. If you've ever seen Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle, you'll know what the 'PH' stands for.
**Had a Nurse and a Police Officer check my car seat. And I registered that sucker on line, so no worries. I done it right.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
'Upside Down' --A Review
What an utterly ridiculous movie this was. A science fiction fairy tale romance directed by Juan Diego Solanas, Upside Down is the story of Adam (Jim Sturgess) and Eden (Kirsten Dunst) as two lovers who have to overcome a big, big problem- namely gravity because their worlds are the only two in the whole universe that spin side by side and each have their own gravity. This gravity, conveniently enough comes along with three rules:
- All matter is pulled by the gravity of the world that it comes from, and not the other.
- An object's weight can be offset by matter from the opposite world (inverse matter).
- After some time in contact, matter in contact with inverse matter burns
I was never very good at physics and never took astronomy in college (though I now kind of wish I would have) but I know enough to realize that the notion of two planets spinning this close together is completely loopy. And I might have been willing to go along with the notion for the sake of being a good sport but there's a catch: the only place these two worlds are joined is in the world bridging skyscraper belonging to the evil Transworld Corporation. Which raises a question: if the two planets rotate- maybe in the same direction, maybe in opposite directions, I don't know- how does the tower stay in one place?
Never mind- let's get to the meat and potatoes of this thing: basically, Adam is from Down Below which is poor and exploited by the rich world Up Above. He's an orphan but gets to visit his Aunt Becky on the weekends and harvest the magical pink peas which seem to be the only things immune to the trifecta of rules that governs this magical place. Climbing a mountain one day (which has a mountain counterpart Up Above that comes nice and close to Down Below) Adam meets Eden and eventually the two fall in love until they're discovered one day- Eden falls and Adam believes her dead but ten years later, he finds out she's alive and soon is racing to find a way to Up Above and reunite with his lost love.
Obviously, he does. And, as a bonus, he knocks her up and they all live happily ever after.
I don't know about this movie. I saw a preview for it and the preview made it look a lot more worthwhile than it actually turned out to be. Don't get me wrong: the concept is totally ridiculous but you could say that for a lot of movies- I was willing to go along with that but for some reason I could never really get invested in these characters. They meet as kids and then BAM they're older and wiser and in love? How does that happen? WTF is up with this pink shit that keeps floating around? If the folks Down Below can't get up above then how exactly can the people Up Above exploit them? Surely there has to be a secret police force or something that oppresses them- otherwise what the hell are they waiting for? Get going and rebuild some shit people!
Too many questions that should have been answered- if they would have answered at least some of them then maybe the movie would have clicked with me a little more. As it was, I could barely summon the energy to care and in the end just wanted it to be over as soon as possible. Which is shame because Sturgess and Dunst had some good chemistry going and it could have been a really interesting story- though the cinematography was amazing it just wasn't enough to make this movie work.
Overall: Kind of a confusing yawn of a movie- I'd say if there's nothing good at Redbox and if you've got a free one and really don't have anything you want to watch on television that night then maybe, maaaaaaaaaybe it might be worth renting but other than that it's a good concept that went sort of awry somewhere. ** out of ****
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Hoover Down, But Not Out
The School Board lowered the boom on Hoover Elementary tonight, voting 5-2 to close the school by 2017-2018... parents had been organized and opposed to the move and two School Board members including Board President Maria Swesey and Tuyet Dorau casting the dissenting votes.
Ostensibly, the move makes a twisted kind of sense. The School Board is considering a 300 student addition to City High to bring it's enrollment in line with West and the soon to be built third high school and Hoover is really the only place that they can expand unless they start snapping up large chunks of the eastside neighborhoods- which would be unpopular and probably a real pain in the ass.
Problem is that the School Board hasn't committed to what Hoover would actually be used for. If it's just going to be another parking lot for City High, people have a right to be pissed about that. I mean, what's the point then? You're closing down an existing, living breathing school- one that's already built to make a parking lot? Uncool and dick move, says I. However, I've seen some chatter on the Interwebs about it possibly being repurposed as a Ninth Grade Center which might actually make a lot of sense. It'd be a bummer to lose the playground but you could probably bring back baseball and maybe even soccer to the CHS Campus which means you'd get more space, more parking and most of the sports back in one place. I'd call that a mild win.
Yet it still seems counterintuitive to me to close Hoover and then build three new elementary schools- I mean, aren't we looking to make more schools not take one away?
If the School Board is smart, they'll get people answers sooner rather than later. As Save Hoover was quick to point out, there are two school board elections between now and the 2017-2018 school year and this has now officially become an election issue.
I'm admittedly conflicted by this... I know there's a need for new facilities on the East Side- East Side parents have been asking for new buildings for awhile and it's good the School Board is committed to that but I'm curious as to the locations they're picking- north of Pleasant Valley Golf Course way south on Sycamore Street? Where's the other one going to go? North on the Scott Boulevard extension? East on Lower West Branch Road? Do they need to be so big? If the model has been for neighborhood schools within walking distance of their student bodies, then why are we moving away from that? Should we? What's the plan, people? If the School Board offered some clarity the community would be at least able to see where they stand.
Either way, we'll see what develops but I have a feeling it's going to be 'game on' come the fall.
Ostensibly, the move makes a twisted kind of sense. The School Board is considering a 300 student addition to City High to bring it's enrollment in line with West and the soon to be built third high school and Hoover is really the only place that they can expand unless they start snapping up large chunks of the eastside neighborhoods- which would be unpopular and probably a real pain in the ass.
Problem is that the School Board hasn't committed to what Hoover would actually be used for. If it's just going to be another parking lot for City High, people have a right to be pissed about that. I mean, what's the point then? You're closing down an existing, living breathing school- one that's already built to make a parking lot? Uncool and dick move, says I. However, I've seen some chatter on the Interwebs about it possibly being repurposed as a Ninth Grade Center which might actually make a lot of sense. It'd be a bummer to lose the playground but you could probably bring back baseball and maybe even soccer to the CHS Campus which means you'd get more space, more parking and most of the sports back in one place. I'd call that a mild win.
Yet it still seems counterintuitive to me to close Hoover and then build three new elementary schools- I mean, aren't we looking to make more schools not take one away?
If the School Board is smart, they'll get people answers sooner rather than later. As Save Hoover was quick to point out, there are two school board elections between now and the 2017-2018 school year and this has now officially become an election issue.
I'm admittedly conflicted by this... I know there's a need for new facilities on the East Side- East Side parents have been asking for new buildings for awhile and it's good the School Board is committed to that but I'm curious as to the locations they're picking- north of Pleasant Valley Golf Course way south on Sycamore Street? Where's the other one going to go? North on the Scott Boulevard extension? East on Lower West Branch Road? Do they need to be so big? If the model has been for neighborhood schools within walking distance of their student bodies, then why are we moving away from that? Should we? What's the plan, people? If the School Board offered some clarity the community would be at least able to see where they stand.
Either way, we'll see what develops but I have a feeling it's going to be 'game on' come the fall.
Monday, July 22, 2013
'Spring Breakers' --A Review
What a strange, weird, beautiful little movie this is. The story of three young woman (whom, I guess are called Britt, Cotty and Candy- though to be honest I think I only caught Candy's name of this particular threesome) who take their innocent, religious bestie down to Florida- her name is Faith only to take the concept of a wild week of fun that is Spring Break down a hedonistic and dangerous hole to places you don't honestly expect.
However, Britt, Cotty and Candy (Ashley Bensen, Vanessa Hudgens and Rachel Korine) have a problem. They're bored of the monotony of campus life and they're ready to go have some fun in Florida and they're willing to do whatever it takes to get there. As it turns out, they're a little short of cash so just like that, the movie takes a left turn down crazy lane as they rob a restaurant using nothing but squirt guns and bad attitudes. Faith (Selena Gomez) is shocked by their crime but she's looking to break out and head to Florida as well so she goes along for the ride.
Once they get there, their hoped for journey of self-discovery seems to be everything they've wanted and more. They meet people, they enjoy every excess of Spring Break they can and they all feel freer than ever before- until they get arrested and thrown into jail after their party gets busted. (Boobs, booze and drugs are all on display here- apparently the ladies move quickly, graduating from marijuana and heading right to cocaine.) It looks like the party is over until a local gangster/would be rapper by the name of Alien (James Franco) bails them out.
Faith becomes increasingly uncomfortable at their new, dangerous surroundings (plus, if someone with James Franco's set of gold-encrusted teeth was constantly leering at me, I'd be a little creeped out too) and pleads with Britt, Cotty and Candy to return home with her. When they refuse, Faith goes home without them and soon the threesome are drawn into Alien's life of crime. When Alien's excess attracts the ire of a local rival, Arch (Gucci Mane), a drive-by shooting results and Cotty gets shot in the arm. That seems to be the wake-up call she needs because she too goes home.
Britt and Candy are left with Alien and soon their relationship becomes sexual in nature and they prepare for a final bloody showdown with Arch and his henchman. Alien gets shot almost immediately, but the duo in pink ski masks storms the mansion, killing everybody, including Arch before kissing Alien's dead body goodbye and driving off into the sunset in Arch's fancy new car. Presumably, they're heading home as well.
Sounds pretty messed up? Well, it was pretty messed up. It was also beautiful- and I mean that in the artistic sense not in the 'oh, the excess of ridiculous shit going on is so freeing and wonderful.' No, Director Harmony Korine paints with a wonderful, trippy neon color palate. Colors seem more vivid in this movie and they pop out at you in the most unexpected of places. At times, it really felt like you were on an acid trip or something. (Not that I have experience with that.) And there were lots of slow-motion shows of bouncing naked breasts and beer bongs intercut with what was either actual Spring Break footage from back in the day or some cleverly messed up footage from the movie that was designed to look like it was from 1994. So from a cinematographic point of view, this movie rocked. Beautiful little movie.
Problem is, I'm still not entirely sure what it was trying to say. Was it saying kids are so empty, so bored and so trapped today that the only remedy to ensure their sanity is ludicrous amounts of excess? Was it some weird, Reefer Madness style social commentary on the youth of today? It's not entirely clear. The movie itself seems to be peeking around the corner from saying something but doesn't seem to actually want to say it. As a result it seemed slightly unfocused in parts- at least to me.
Overall: Ludicrous excess and beautiful cinematography and neon colors everywhere reminded me a little of Drive for some reason- but overall I suppose the movie was decent enough. The whole wild partying, drink til you're ridiculous, run around with no shirt on thing was an alien concept to me even when I was in college- the appeal remains lacking even today. Credit though, to James Franco for turning in an almost unrecognizable performance as Alien and if Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens were looking to break out of their squeaky clean Disney Channel images, they've taken a good first step. (The fact that Gomez looks about 12 throughout this movie only adds to the creepiness in parts.) I'd say ** 1/2 out of **** though. It looks beautiful but it doesn't seem to be saying much of anything at all. But maybe that's the point.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
The Mystery of The Speeding Moustache
I'm a little late to this particular party- kudos to The Quiet Man not to mention the rest of the state were being all over it last week but now that somebody's been fired and The Moustache felt the need to call a press conference about it, I feel like it's worth digging in to.
So what's all the hubub about?
Well, The Moustache and His Chief Henchwoman were clocked doing about 84 MPH on Highway 20. A DCI Agent who happened to be in the area noticed this and called it into the State Troopers to get the vehicle stopped. The State Troopers caught up with the vehicle and ran the plate. The plate came back not on file. They stopped the vehicle and were probably somewhat surprised to discover a State Trooper behind the wheel ('License and registra- oh, it's you.') and The Moustache and His Chief Henchwoman along for the ride.
The DCI Agent who called this in naturally filed a complaint along the lines of 'WTF does The Moustache need to travel so damn fast?' and five days later he was fired.
There's something fishy about this whole damn thing. Not the stop... there are tons of law enforcement and state vehicles that have dummy plates that, if run by someone, don't return with any information- they just say not on file. I haven't heard it happen all that often but now and again, I'll hear someone pull a traffic stop on what turns out to be an unmarked at work. ('License and registra- oh, my bad.')
Firing the DCI agent for essentially wondering just what the hell was going on seems pretty damn fishy. The fact that The Moustache called a press conference in which he called the fired agent to permit the release of his 500 page disciplinary file. (My favorite quote: 'I would love to tell you everything, but the lawyers tell me I can't.' Fucking lawyers, how dare you DEFY THE MOUSTACHE.) He also wants the number of not-on-file/dummy plates reduced and has said that the State Troopers will be told to follow the speed limit if not on emergency business.
But here's the thing- we're not really going to know unless that file gets released. Could be that the Department of Public Safety had a perfectly valid reason to fire the DCI Agent in question but the timing is abysmal which is probably why The Moustache called the press conference in the first place just to try and convince peeps that this wasn't because the DCI Agent started asking questions in the first place. (Not sure people are buying it, to be honest.)
I think The Moustache does make a good point though. It'd be helpful to have some of these dummy plates entered into the system so that, if they're run, people at least know that they're affiliated with a government agency of some kind. They could even all come back to 'State of Iowa' if people have concerns about it. This whole situation could have potentially been avoided had someone been able to get information indicating that very important people on very important business were inside
I do like how The Moustache stated that State Troopers would be told to follow the speed limit unless on emergency business. One hopes that will also apply to the State Trooper that drives him around the place.
So what's all the hubub about?
Well, The Moustache and His Chief Henchwoman were clocked doing about 84 MPH on Highway 20. A DCI Agent who happened to be in the area noticed this and called it into the State Troopers to get the vehicle stopped. The State Troopers caught up with the vehicle and ran the plate. The plate came back not on file. They stopped the vehicle and were probably somewhat surprised to discover a State Trooper behind the wheel ('License and registra- oh, it's you.') and The Moustache and His Chief Henchwoman along for the ride.
The DCI Agent who called this in naturally filed a complaint along the lines of 'WTF does The Moustache need to travel so damn fast?' and five days later he was fired.
There's something fishy about this whole damn thing. Not the stop... there are tons of law enforcement and state vehicles that have dummy plates that, if run by someone, don't return with any information- they just say not on file. I haven't heard it happen all that often but now and again, I'll hear someone pull a traffic stop on what turns out to be an unmarked at work. ('License and registra- oh, my bad.')
Firing the DCI agent for essentially wondering just what the hell was going on seems pretty damn fishy. The fact that The Moustache called a press conference in which he called the fired agent to permit the release of his 500 page disciplinary file. (My favorite quote: 'I would love to tell you everything, but the lawyers tell me I can't.' Fucking lawyers, how dare you DEFY THE MOUSTACHE.) He also wants the number of not-on-file/dummy plates reduced and has said that the State Troopers will be told to follow the speed limit if not on emergency business.
But here's the thing- we're not really going to know unless that file gets released. Could be that the Department of Public Safety had a perfectly valid reason to fire the DCI Agent in question but the timing is abysmal which is probably why The Moustache called the press conference in the first place just to try and convince peeps that this wasn't because the DCI Agent started asking questions in the first place. (Not sure people are buying it, to be honest.)
I think The Moustache does make a good point though. It'd be helpful to have some of these dummy plates entered into the system so that, if they're run, people at least know that they're affiliated with a government agency of some kind. They could even all come back to 'State of Iowa' if people have concerns about it. This whole situation could have potentially been avoided had someone been able to get information indicating that very important people on very important business were inside
I do like how The Moustache stated that State Troopers would be told to follow the speed limit unless on emergency business. One hopes that will also apply to the State Trooper that drives him around the place.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
This Week In Vexillology #38
I'm trying real hard not to make an inappropriate joke about Kool-Aid* this week kids, because we're heading down to South America to take a look at the flag of Guyana!
Known as 'The Golden Arrow' for it's golden arrowhead that flies across the green field it was adopted on May 20th, 1966 for national and civil usage- it was designed by American Vexillologist Whitney Smith (man, how do you break into that field of employment? I would love to be a professional vexillologist) and originally had a red field and not a green field but upon independence from the United Kingdom in 1966, the College of Arms changed the field to green and added the black and white fimbriations on the red triangle and golden arrow.
'The Golden Arrow' of the flag represents a brighter future for the country while the color yellow is symbolic of mineral wealth. The green represents the vast forests and fields while red recalls the people's dynamism and zeal for reform.
To be honest, I don't know much about Guyana but the reader's digest version: originally consisting of three Dutch colonies of Essequibo, Berbice and Demerara the British assumed control of the region formally uniting the three colonies in 1814 under the name of British Guiana. Interestingly enough, Guyana is considered part of the Anglophone Caribbean- being the only country in the Caribbean that's not an island- it's also officially named the Cooperative Republic of Guyana...
And now you know the 4-1-1 on Guyana- or at least a little more than you did yesterday. Unless you're reading this and happen to be from Guyana or have been to Guyana in which case you probably knew all that stuff anyway. Either way, put your hands together and give it up for Guyana!
And remember, until next time, keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise!
*Yeah, that Jonestown Massacre that happened back in the 70s? Jonestown was in Guyana- but I didn't want to pigeonhole a country I know very little about for a cheap and probably inappropriate laugh.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Ignore The Cover, Read The Article
Rolling Stone has plunged deep into the pool of media generated controversy this week with their decision to publish a 10-11k piece on the Boston Bomber and put his face on their cover. Needless to say, people are massively, massively pissed off about this. Major retailers (including Hy-Vee around these parts- but CVS as well) have refused to sell the issue of the magazine citing the public outcry over the Bomber's place on the cover.
Personally, I think you could probably make a small fortune from being a media critic these days and there's plenty to be critical about. (CNN is running the umpteenth hour of coverage of a trial that's already concluded and then there's this cover debacle and oodles more to get into.) But here's the thing: the article is worth reading. It's obviously well-researched, well-written and a decent attempt (if such a thing is possible) to get some insight into what made, by all accounts a promising young man become a terrorist.
The cover, however, is a dick move to me. First of all, to me, Rolling Stone should well, be about music. I get that they have a history of political coverage and other pieces but the primary focus- the cover should be something about music, to me. Maybe that's way off base- I don't subscribe to Rolling Stone anymore (nor am I likely too again after this) but it seems like an appropriate point to make.
Second of all: sexing him up? Seriously? The curly hair, the dark, brooding eyes-- this guy hs a growing fan club of loons already- why give them more ammo? Why win him more converts? It's reminscent of their famous shot of Jim Morrison- except that Morrison just whipped out his trouser snake in Miami- he didn't blow anybody up. So, I disagree with that. The soft lines, the hint of angelic whatever... it's disgusting. If they wanted to use a picture of him on the cover, they should have used his mug shot.
Third of all: deliberately generating controversy doesn't impress me. It doesn't impress me when the media spins bullshit about the trial* that just concluded in Florida and it doesn't impress me when Rolling Stone does it here. You know someone, somewhere knew this was going to cause a shitstorm to end all shitstorm and they knew that it would sell magazines (mainly on the principle that if you tell people something's controversial, there's going to be a stampede of people wanting to figure out what it is and if it's worth all the hype) but they did it anyway. I know, I know, real journalists have to make money like the rest of us and I should pull my head out of my ass and not pretend like this is some pie-in-the-sky-wouldn't-it-be-awesome-if-they-were-all-like-Jeff-Daniels-in-The-Newsroom world but it still strikes me as fundamentally uncool and, as I said, a dick move.
I wouldn't buy this issue if somebody paid me too (cover being a dick move and all) but I have to admit that the article is well worth reading. To paraphrase in Reddit speak: TL;DR Ignore the cover, read the article
*I tweeted briefly after the conclusion of the Trial in Florida and I swore point blank I wasn't going to blog a damn thing about it. It's the Trial That Shall Not Be Named.
Personally, I think you could probably make a small fortune from being a media critic these days and there's plenty to be critical about. (CNN is running the umpteenth hour of coverage of a trial that's already concluded and then there's this cover debacle and oodles more to get into.) But here's the thing: the article is worth reading. It's obviously well-researched, well-written and a decent attempt (if such a thing is possible) to get some insight into what made, by all accounts a promising young man become a terrorist.
The cover, however, is a dick move to me. First of all, to me, Rolling Stone should well, be about music. I get that they have a history of political coverage and other pieces but the primary focus- the cover should be something about music, to me. Maybe that's way off base- I don't subscribe to Rolling Stone anymore (nor am I likely too again after this) but it seems like an appropriate point to make.
Second of all: sexing him up? Seriously? The curly hair, the dark, brooding eyes-- this guy hs a growing fan club of loons already- why give them more ammo? Why win him more converts? It's reminscent of their famous shot of Jim Morrison- except that Morrison just whipped out his trouser snake in Miami- he didn't blow anybody up. So, I disagree with that. The soft lines, the hint of angelic whatever... it's disgusting. If they wanted to use a picture of him on the cover, they should have used his mug shot.
Third of all: deliberately generating controversy doesn't impress me. It doesn't impress me when the media spins bullshit about the trial* that just concluded in Florida and it doesn't impress me when Rolling Stone does it here. You know someone, somewhere knew this was going to cause a shitstorm to end all shitstorm and they knew that it would sell magazines (mainly on the principle that if you tell people something's controversial, there's going to be a stampede of people wanting to figure out what it is and if it's worth all the hype) but they did it anyway. I know, I know, real journalists have to make money like the rest of us and I should pull my head out of my ass and not pretend like this is some pie-in-the-sky-wouldn't-it-be-awesome-if-they-were-all-like-Jeff-Daniels-in-The-Newsroom world but it still strikes me as fundamentally uncool and, as I said, a dick move.
I wouldn't buy this issue if somebody paid me too (cover being a dick move and all) but I have to admit that the article is well worth reading. To paraphrase in Reddit speak: TL;DR Ignore the cover, read the article
*I tweeted briefly after the conclusion of the Trial in Florida and I swore point blank I wasn't going to blog a damn thing about it. It's the Trial That Shall Not Be Named.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Orange Is The New Black Season 1: Some Thoughts
1. There are more strong female roles in a single episode of this show than anything that I've seen ever. All right, you could argue what else could happen if you set your television show in a women's prison but handled incorrectly the premise and the writing could have been horrible. They're not. Every prisoner has a story and you get shown tantalizing glimpses of their lives before/on the outside throughout the thirteen episodes of the first season. (It's already been renewed for Season 2 which is awesome, especially given how this ends.)
2. It's not 'Oz for the Ladies' either. There are genuinely funny moments, genuinely dark moments and genuinely wrenching and touching moments. You run the whole spectrum of emotions with this show and it's a great thing.
3. Sorry dudes. Not a ton of nudity either... there are maybe two lesbian sex scenes I can think of.
4. Kate Mulgrew, who plays the Russian in charge of the kitchen, Red damn near steals the show. She flat out owns every scene she is in and no kidding: I don't know if it's Emmy worthy but she should be nominated for something for her role. She practically bristles right off of the screen into your living room. Excellent stuff.
5. Natasha Lyonne is also back and better than ever. And I won't complain about Laura Prepon either.
6. Pablo Schreiber who plays the prison guard Mendez (also known as Pornstache) looks a lot like a generic, off the shelf version of Andy Samberg with his moustache. Without his moustache, the family resemblance to his half brother Liev is kind of obvious.
7. I like how three dimensional the characters are the evolution that each character goes through over the course of the season feels real. Despite a racial divide (Hispanics, Old Folks, White People, African-Americans- which is explained as 'it's not racial, it's tribal' in the first episode) there's a maturity about the way this show handles points about race, gender, drugs and poverty. They make points without being preachy and condescending a la Aaron Sorkin and avoiding overly saccharine after school special type of moments as well.
8. Good shows always leave you wanting more- and by the end of this first batch of episodes, there's enough up in the air for all the characters you love that you're dying to find out what happens next. I like that.
9. The other side of the prison (the guards and the management) also gets explored and there's shadiness on both sides of the equation- the story of the guard, Bennet (Matt McGorry) and Daya (Dascha Polanco), a prisoner whom he impregnates and falls for serves as a nice bridge between the two 'worlds.' Again- this is another example of something that, if handled badly could have been downright awful. It's not. Ditto with the story of Sophia (Laverne Cox), a transsexual prisoner who gets taken off of her hormones by the prison.
10. Look, it's the lazy, crazy, downright humid and hot days of summer. Why aren't you binge watching the shit out of this show yet?
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
#WriterProblems: The Trouble With Revisions
I've been a little distracted lately (but in a wonderful, wonderful way) so my progress on revisions has been somewhat slower than I'd like- but I'm back at work now and getting back into the swing of things so revisions are picking up steam and that means that I'm wrestling with that age old problem of how to revise, what to revise and more importantly, how to make my story even better.
I'm not going to lie: it's hard sometimes. You throw a lot of energy into writing a book and when you get constructive criticism and feedback you can feel good about it because you suddenly have ideas that make your book better but there are also moments where everything seems bleak and you doubt that you can make any of it work.
Right now, I'm sort of evenly balanced between the two. I've got a lot of good feedback from people which is exciting because I've got a long list of plot problems and continuity issues to fix and characters that didn't seem that important suddenly have become very important indeed. The most exciting thing of all, however: the bones of my story are intact. The overall plot still holds. There's work to be done of course but it's nice to have that reassurance that your overall idea doesn't totally blow.
But then you plunge right back into the trouble with revisions: keeping it all straight. Making sure that when you're revising one chapter and polishing, burnishing, and making it beautiful you're not totally screwing up a chapter somewhere down the line and making a bigger mess for yourself. It's also exciting- elevating the characters you've created and the narrative you've painstakingly woven together. I've always thought that it wouldn't matter how long or how short my novel is- all that mattered to me was that I could look back through it and be satisfied that it was the best possible story I could make before turning it loose on the world.
So far, I've worked my way through the Prologue and Chapter 1. Chapters 2, 3 and the rest of them are up next- so be on the look out for a taste or two as I kick things into high gear to try and get this thing ready for the fall. My biggest challenge remains lining up my cover art- but that's another problem entirely.
As for me, I'm going to roll up my sleep and get back to wrestling with my revisions. Time to get this polished up and over the finish line.
I'm not going to lie: it's hard sometimes. You throw a lot of energy into writing a book and when you get constructive criticism and feedback you can feel good about it because you suddenly have ideas that make your book better but there are also moments where everything seems bleak and you doubt that you can make any of it work.
Right now, I'm sort of evenly balanced between the two. I've got a lot of good feedback from people which is exciting because I've got a long list of plot problems and continuity issues to fix and characters that didn't seem that important suddenly have become very important indeed. The most exciting thing of all, however: the bones of my story are intact. The overall plot still holds. There's work to be done of course but it's nice to have that reassurance that your overall idea doesn't totally blow.
But then you plunge right back into the trouble with revisions: keeping it all straight. Making sure that when you're revising one chapter and polishing, burnishing, and making it beautiful you're not totally screwing up a chapter somewhere down the line and making a bigger mess for yourself. It's also exciting- elevating the characters you've created and the narrative you've painstakingly woven together. I've always thought that it wouldn't matter how long or how short my novel is- all that mattered to me was that I could look back through it and be satisfied that it was the best possible story I could make before turning it loose on the world.
So far, I've worked my way through the Prologue and Chapter 1. Chapters 2, 3 and the rest of them are up next- so be on the look out for a taste or two as I kick things into high gear to try and get this thing ready for the fall. My biggest challenge remains lining up my cover art- but that's another problem entirely.
As for me, I'm going to roll up my sleep and get back to wrestling with my revisions. Time to get this polished up and over the finish line.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
The Practical Guide To Entertaining The Cigarillo #1
One thing I figured out pretty quickly when it came to The Cigarillo was that he likes adventures. If you want him to nap, sleep at night or not go stir crazy and start finding every possible thing to get into in the house, getting him out of the house is key. Whether it's just a stroller ride around the block or a visit to Mercer Park across the street or something more complex, an adventure is key.
And all of that got me thinking... what are the best places and playgrounds to have adventures? There's an off chance that someone out there reading this might need a hot tip to shake things up with their kiddos so I thought, why not put together The Practical Guide To Cigarillo Entertainment and let people know what my favorite toddler friendly hot spots are. So, without further ado:
The Indoor Playground at Coral Ridge Mall
(The name is probably something like 'Perky and Herky's Fun Adventure Time Play Place')
Pros: It's indoor. No need to worry about sunscreen or hydration- kids can take their shoes off and go wild. It's also a shoe free zone which is a plus for The Cigarillo as he's not a fan of shoes and they're usually the first thing to get taken off on a journey.
Cons: It's all soft, squishy stuff that puts me in mind of a germ filled Doctor's office a little bit. And it sort of smells that way too.
Verdict: Perfect for insanely hot days and while I'm not a fan of rounded corners on everything damn thing, if you've got a daredevil on your hands that shows no fear like The Cigarillo you can at least take some comfort from the fact that if they decide to randomly jump off of something, they'll probably bounce.
Mark Twain Elementary School
(Back In My Old 'Hood)
Pros: Quiet neighborhood... plenty of green space to run around and go crazy in- and the little man did a lot of running. They've changed out the equipment a couple of times since I was a kid but I was surprised to find that the monkey bars (middle picture) are the same exact ones that they had back when I was in kindergarten. Except it was gravel and not mulch to break your fall back then. (Back when playgrounds weren't for the faint of heart and crossing the monkey bars for the first time made you cool.)
Cons: Outside... and that means bugs and heat. There was beaucoup de bird shit on one set of equipment but aside from that it's a pretty fun place to spend sometime. And- there's more playground equipment on the other side of the school.
Bonus: That rigging thing is pretty damn cool. Never had those back in the day and the roller slide is the most fun I've had on the playground in a long time. (Back in the day: metal slides would burn the shit out of you and the plastic ones can shock the shit out of your courtesy of static electricity. This slide accelerates you- and the bigger you are the faster it shoots you down.)
Verdict: Close to the Casa de Cigar, quiet, fun playground with plenty of room to run. The trip down memory lane was also nice.
And all of that got me thinking... what are the best places and playgrounds to have adventures? There's an off chance that someone out there reading this might need a hot tip to shake things up with their kiddos so I thought, why not put together The Practical Guide To Cigarillo Entertainment and let people know what my favorite toddler friendly hot spots are. So, without further ado:
The Indoor Playground at Coral Ridge Mall
(The name is probably something like 'Perky and Herky's Fun Adventure Time Play Place')
Pros: It's indoor. No need to worry about sunscreen or hydration- kids can take their shoes off and go wild. It's also a shoe free zone which is a plus for The Cigarillo as he's not a fan of shoes and they're usually the first thing to get taken off on a journey.
Cons: It's all soft, squishy stuff that puts me in mind of a germ filled Doctor's office a little bit. And it sort of smells that way too.
Verdict: Perfect for insanely hot days and while I'm not a fan of rounded corners on everything damn thing, if you've got a daredevil on your hands that shows no fear like The Cigarillo you can at least take some comfort from the fact that if they decide to randomly jump off of something, they'll probably bounce.
Mark Twain Elementary School
(Back In My Old 'Hood)
Cons: Outside... and that means bugs and heat. There was beaucoup de bird shit on one set of equipment but aside from that it's a pretty fun place to spend sometime. And- there's more playground equipment on the other side of the school.
Bonus: That rigging thing is pretty damn cool. Never had those back in the day and the roller slide is the most fun I've had on the playground in a long time. (Back in the day: metal slides would burn the shit out of you and the plastic ones can shock the shit out of your courtesy of static electricity. This slide accelerates you- and the bigger you are the faster it shoots you down.)
Verdict: Close to the Casa de Cigar, quiet, fun playground with plenty of room to run. The trip down memory lane was also nice.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Rowan, 2003-2013
Rowan was the family basset hound. We got her when she was a puppy and she was an ever-present part of the family for ten long, wonderful years. She was the neediest dog I've ever met. If you weren't petting her, she'd whine at you and you couldn't get away with just touching her either- she demanded motion, movement and attention. If you didn't feel like giving it to her, she'd fix you with one of those pathetic, pleading glances with her big, brown eyes and long nose and you'd soon give in and she'd get what she wanted. Whether it was a scratch behind the ears or a nice, long belly rub she loved the attention.
She was getting older though and having some trouble with arthritis and when my parents went out to visit some friends in Wyoming, they took Shep with them and Rowan came to stay with us for a few days. She got along with Little Man (she likes the attention, after all) and she got along with the other dogs and cats so she fit in just fine. About a week ago around lunch time, I noticed that she was dragging one of her legs behind her. Concerned, I called Mom who told me to give her some IbuProfen to see if that would help. I did that and instead of getting better it, it got worse.
By the time I left for work, poor girl was dragging herself around by the front legs- she had no use of her back legs at all. By the time the Missus got home, she couldn't even hold herself up to go outside and go pee. She spent the evening sitting next to the Missus on the couch, quietly and then I came home from work and we rushed her into the emergency vet hospital.
I had a feeling it was going to be bad. If the painkillers weren't helping then something had to be very, very wrong and sure enough the vet checked her out and we got Mom and Dad on the phone and worked out some option. If it was a slipped disc, then we would have needed an MRI (which meant a trip to Ames) to find out where it was and even with surgery, given her age there was no guarantee of a full recovery. If it was a tumor on her spinal cord then there would be nothing they could do. They could try x-rays on sight and do some bloodwork but if the pain was getting worse because of the compression on her spine, the risk was that it could become permanent and the clock was ticking.
I wished that Mom and Dad would have been there for her. I think she would have liked that. But if the pain was getting worse that would have meant at minimum another day with IV pain medications in a strange place waiting for them to come be with her. My parents didn't want that for her. So they made the call and I sat on the floor, stroking her as they found a vein and gave her the injection as she slowly faded out. It was peaceful. Even dignified. She's in a better place. And she will be missed.
(The Missus mentioned something about a Rainbow Bridge... I looked it up and discovered it was a poem. A very nice poem.)
Sunday, July 14, 2013
'Pacific Rim' --A Review
I have been waiting to see this movie for months now because it looked epic and awesome and with the Missus and The Cigarillo visiting her Mom and her Grandparents in Iowa Falls for a couple of days and with enough coverage at work last night, I took a couple of hours of vacation to go and catch the late show.
And you know what? This movie was epic. And it was awesome. And it managed to do something rare: it made me feel like a kid again while thinking 'this is fucking awesome' over and over again. (The last movie to do that was the first- not the excrement filled sequels- Transformers movie.) Pacific Rim opens seven years into humanity's epic war against the kaiju- monsters that emerge from an inter-dimensional rift deep beneath Pacific Ocean. After suffering through the initial attacks on San Francisco and Manilla humanity needed a way to fight back and came up with the jaeger program- gigantic robots to fight the kaiju.
The jaegers are piloted by two pilots- one for the left side of the brain one for the right side of the brain joined by a neural connection called 'the Drift' and soon humanity starts winning- but it doesn't last and soon the kaiju are winning, the jaegers are losing and the governments of the world lose faith in the program, terminate it and start building a gigantic wall to wall off the coasts and provide some semblance of protection from the kaiju.
The head of the jaeger program, Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba) has enough time to assemble one, last desperate mission bringing back Raleigh Beckett (Charlie Hunnam) an ex-Jaeger pilot of the old American jaeger Gipsy Danger. He used to pilot with his brother Yancey who was killed and ripped out of the cockpit during a kaiju attack. Now with one final chance to close the rift, Stacker brings Raleigh back to pilot a revived Gipsy Danger along with the Australian Jaeger Striker Eureka, Russia's Cherno Alphia and China's Crimson Typhoon. With a mega nuclear weapon, they're going to attack the rift and detonate it, hopefully sealing the rift once and for all.
It's obvious that Guillermo Del Toro put a lot of heart into this movie and the sense of scale is exactly right. You see the rivets and the bolts and the rust and wear and tear on all the jaegers. You get a sense of how massive and destructive the kaiju attacks are. (The battle for Hong Kong is just about as epic as you could possible get.) The kaiju have shades of Godzilla about them but manage to be equally as epic as their metallic, gigantic robot counterparts.
It's not a perfect movie, but then again, it doesn't have to be. At it's heart this is about gigantic robots fighting gigantic monsters and it seems ridiculous sometimes but it's sublimely, beautifully ridiculous and you don't care. The dialogue gets clunky in places but that too you're willing to forgive because well, everything else is just so awesome... you don't care. This is a rare, beautiful movie: it's not a sequel. It's not a reboot. It's not some dark re-imagining or barbaric destruction of some part of your childhood in the name of making mindless amounts of money for Hollywood. It's an original story and an original movie that's designed to be more than anything else, fun. And that's a beautiful thing.
Overall: **** out of **** Sheer, epic awesomeness all around. I'm torn about whether I want to see sequels. I think there's potential there but they also ended the movie in such a way that this could be the only movie or there could be sequels.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
This Week In Vexillology #37
Get your red and white checkered party suits on and try and say Dubrovnik ten times in a row, kids because this week, we've got the European Union's 28th and newest member, Croatia.
Adopted on December 22nd, 1991 for National and Civil usage, the flag of Croatia is a horizontal tricolor. Red, white and blue are traditional Croatian colors that date back to the 19th Century. (While part of Yugoslavia, Croatia's flag was designed in the pan-Slavic colors of red, white and blue- essentially it was the same flag seen above except without the coat of arms and with a gold-edged red star placed in the center by Marshal Tito.)
The arms of Croatia occupy the center of the flag: red and white checks are traditional emblems of Croatia, while the small shields on top of the main shield are taken from the arms of Croatia's regions. From left to right they are, Croatia, Dubrovnik, Dalmatia, Istria and Slavonia.
So, ladies and gentlemen, put your hands together and give it up for Croatia! And remember, until next time, keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise!
Friday, July 12, 2013
Whiskey of the Month #10: The Balvenie Doublewood, 12 Years Old
This one is called the Doublewood because it's aged in two separate casks. The majority of the aging (per the label) is done in oak casks- but an extra few months are tacked on at the end in an oak sherry cask-- which makes the Doublewood a bundle of interesting flavors.
(Geography time, kids: Balvenie is a Speyside whiskey... check out the map at the link so we can start learning our whiskey regions- there might be a quiz later, so study up and sample freely.)
Color: Golden (this is about as golden as whiskies come. Can't describe this one as honey or amber or any other shade of gold.)
Body: Notes of honey and vanilla form the underlying sweetness of the whiskey-- appropriately enough, the oak is evident and adds a nice spicy aftertaste.
Palate: This is an interesting one... it's light on the tongue and yet it's got a full, rich kick to it that almost puts me in mind of an Islay-- the spice is so evident, it's almost smokey, in a way. Molasses and a hint of the fruit (for some reason I keep tasting just a hint of banana) that the label promises dance on the tongue.
Finish: The spice comes on strong-- maybe a little too strong but then it finishes nicely with a gradual warming sensation that's very pleasant indeed.
Overall: Balvenie's Caribbean Cask is on my wish list and I'd drink this again- but I think double the wood doesn't necessarily equal double the pleasure with this one. The complexity of the flavors makes this an intriguing drink but the oak adds a spicy, almost smokey kick that's almost overwhelming- which is a shame, because I think there's a lot underneath that could added another layer to this already complex whiskey.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Should You Boycott 'Ender's Game'?
I suppose this was inevitable. After years and years, Hollywood finally got around to getting the classic science fiction novel Ender's Game onto the big screen. The preview looks promising and overall I felt a mild thrill of geek excitement about it. With Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley and Viola Davis in the cast there's a heft of genuine star power to it and it looks like a good time at the movies.
And that's good because really and truly, Ender's Game is a classic of the genre. If there was a Buzzfeed article about the 25 Science Fiction Novels You Should Read No Matter What, Ender's Game would be somewhere on that list and I would give it a hearty two thumbs up to anyone that's looking for new science fiction to read or are dipping their toes into big, wild world of science fiction for the very first time. It's thought provoking, genuinely good- maybe even great writing.
But here's the thing: the author, Orson Scott Card hasn't been shy about his views on marriage equality and needless to say, he's decidedly against it. (For the full manifesto and reasoning, check this out.) This, of course, has offended people some of whom are calling for a total boycott of the movie. The Hollywood Reporter is saying that the filmmakers are starting to distance themselves from Card's views and I'm sure this is only going to pick up steam the closer we get to the movie's release date in November.
As a writer and lifelong lover of books- especially science fiction ones this presents me with something of a quandry. I'm not a diehard Orson Scott Card fan. Ender's Game seems to have spawned a whole slew of sequels not many of which impressed me as much as the original but Ender's Game itself is a genuinely well-written, thought provoking book- and I appreciate that. Good science fiction not to mention good literature is supposed to be thought provoking and it helps when the author can actually write as well. But I disagree with Mr. Card's views on marriage equality.
For a start, I don't find his arguments especially compelling. Gay marriage has been going on in Iowa for a few years now and I remain married and I still love my wife and unless something has changed in the past few minutes of me starting this blog post, she still loves me. (Ditto for the Cigar Parentals. Still married. Fabric of the family still strong.) The social apocalypse promised by opponents of marriage equality has yet to appear.
However, I also think that this country was founded because people were looking for a place where they could be left alone to practice whatever religious beliefs or lack thereof they happened to hold. That's been a founding premise of America since the Pilgrims landed. It would be very nice if everyone could just stay in their respective corners and get on with the messy and complicated business of living on some of these issues instead of trying to make foie gras out of these issues by forcing them in a spiky 'French guy craving paté' kind of way down the throats of everybody else in the country.*
But since I don't live in that country, were I seem to be landing is here: I do not in any way, shape or form agree with Mr. Card's views but as a believer in the First Amendment, I have to respect his right to express those views, however repellent and odious I might find them. But should I spend my money and go see a movie and send some fraction of the $7.50 I'll pay for a ticket to Mr. Card's pocket?
I'm honestly not sure. Will this boycott be effective to begin with? If I choose not to go see this movie in theaters but millions of eager movie goers flock to a holiday release, Mr. Card will make plenty of money anyway. (It's a science fiction movie. It's like geek catnip. People will probably go anyway.) But Hollywood being Hollywood there's also a decent chance that this could suck. The book is always better than the movie, after all.
In the end, if I'm going to make a statement by boycotting something I'd like it to be meaningful. When the brouhaha over Chick Fill-A blew up, I couldn't pretend that I was boycotting them over their views on marriage equality because Chick Fill-A isn't something I eat on a regular basis. 'Oooooh, I'm not going to patronize a restaurant I hardly ever go to anyway, I'm being such an activist and such a protestor. F**k them and their waffle fries!' I do believe in voting with your feet though. If a company or a restaurant chain hold views that you disagree just don't go there. It's that simple.
So, in that spirit and since there are plenty of movies every year that I'd like to see but never get around to seeing, I think I will forgo Ender's Game at the theaters. However, I make no promises about Redbox. That way at least I can take some comfort in knowing that Mr. Card will be getting a tinier fraction of my money than if I sprung for the full movie ticket.
*Obviously I support marriage equality. But both sides seem to think that the other is out to get them and force them to endorse the opposing view which I find tiresome. Let those that want to get married get married and let everybody get on with life.
UPDATED, 7/11/13: An interesting update to all of this... Mr. Card has issued a statement which included this quote (while also conceded that it was now just a matter of time before same sex marriage is legal everywhere.):
And that's good because really and truly, Ender's Game is a classic of the genre. If there was a Buzzfeed article about the 25 Science Fiction Novels You Should Read No Matter What, Ender's Game would be somewhere on that list and I would give it a hearty two thumbs up to anyone that's looking for new science fiction to read or are dipping their toes into big, wild world of science fiction for the very first time. It's thought provoking, genuinely good- maybe even great writing.
But here's the thing: the author, Orson Scott Card hasn't been shy about his views on marriage equality and needless to say, he's decidedly against it. (For the full manifesto and reasoning, check this out.) This, of course, has offended people some of whom are calling for a total boycott of the movie. The Hollywood Reporter is saying that the filmmakers are starting to distance themselves from Card's views and I'm sure this is only going to pick up steam the closer we get to the movie's release date in November.
As a writer and lifelong lover of books- especially science fiction ones this presents me with something of a quandry. I'm not a diehard Orson Scott Card fan. Ender's Game seems to have spawned a whole slew of sequels not many of which impressed me as much as the original but Ender's Game itself is a genuinely well-written, thought provoking book- and I appreciate that. Good science fiction not to mention good literature is supposed to be thought provoking and it helps when the author can actually write as well. But I disagree with Mr. Card's views on marriage equality.
For a start, I don't find his arguments especially compelling. Gay marriage has been going on in Iowa for a few years now and I remain married and I still love my wife and unless something has changed in the past few minutes of me starting this blog post, she still loves me. (Ditto for the Cigar Parentals. Still married. Fabric of the family still strong.) The social apocalypse promised by opponents of marriage equality has yet to appear.
However, I also think that this country was founded because people were looking for a place where they could be left alone to practice whatever religious beliefs or lack thereof they happened to hold. That's been a founding premise of America since the Pilgrims landed. It would be very nice if everyone could just stay in their respective corners and get on with the messy and complicated business of living on some of these issues instead of trying to make foie gras out of these issues by forcing them in a spiky 'French guy craving paté' kind of way down the throats of everybody else in the country.*
But since I don't live in that country, were I seem to be landing is here: I do not in any way, shape or form agree with Mr. Card's views but as a believer in the First Amendment, I have to respect his right to express those views, however repellent and odious I might find them. But should I spend my money and go see a movie and send some fraction of the $7.50 I'll pay for a ticket to Mr. Card's pocket?
I'm honestly not sure. Will this boycott be effective to begin with? If I choose not to go see this movie in theaters but millions of eager movie goers flock to a holiday release, Mr. Card will make plenty of money anyway. (It's a science fiction movie. It's like geek catnip. People will probably go anyway.) But Hollywood being Hollywood there's also a decent chance that this could suck. The book is always better than the movie, after all.
In the end, if I'm going to make a statement by boycotting something I'd like it to be meaningful. When the brouhaha over Chick Fill-A blew up, I couldn't pretend that I was boycotting them over their views on marriage equality because Chick Fill-A isn't something I eat on a regular basis. 'Oooooh, I'm not going to patronize a restaurant I hardly ever go to anyway, I'm being such an activist and such a protestor. F**k them and their waffle fries!' I do believe in voting with your feet though. If a company or a restaurant chain hold views that you disagree just don't go there. It's that simple.
So, in that spirit and since there are plenty of movies every year that I'd like to see but never get around to seeing, I think I will forgo Ender's Game at the theaters. However, I make no promises about Redbox. That way at least I can take some comfort in knowing that Mr. Card will be getting a tinier fraction of my money than if I sprung for the full movie ticket.
*Obviously I support marriage equality. But both sides seem to think that the other is out to get them and force them to endorse the opposing view which I find tiresome. Let those that want to get married get married and let everybody get on with life.
UPDATED, 7/11/13: An interesting update to all of this... Mr. Card has issued a statement which included this quote (while also conceded that it was now just a matter of time before same sex marriage is legal everywhere.):
"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."Hmmmm... define tolerance? I don't think people with distasteful opinions should be hounded or herded into re-education camps until they change their ways. Everyone has a right to their opinion, even if it happens to be a shitty one. But I also have a right not to buy Mr. Card's books or go and see movie adaptation of his books if I feel strongly enough about his views... If I met Mr. Card in person, I wouldn't hesitate to tell him that I find his views distasteful and wrong if the subject came up and I certainly would be loathe to share a beer with the guy. He can have his opinion. Just don't expect me to give him a cookie and a pat on the head for it.
Monday, July 8, 2013
What Do I Want In An Art Museum?
Interesting question posted by the P-C this morning... as the University gets going on the design process to replace the Museum of Art, they asked some big-wigs around town the following question:
The most important thing then is location, location, location! A new Art Museum should be as centrally located as possible and that, to me, means downtown. My dream spots:
Basically: go big or go home.
Now that UI officials are moving forward with efforts to construct a new museum without relocation funding from FEMA, what are some key factors those officials need to keep in mind as they figure out what the new facility will look like and where it will be built?Fantastic question. And I know the P-C didn't call me up and ask me specifically but there's a fantastic opportunity for the University to do this right this time and create a world class facility for a world class collection of art that seemed like one of the best kept secrets in town locked up in a dated old facility that had lousy parking and was kind of hard to find.
The most important thing then is location, location, location! A new Art Museum should be as centrally located as possible and that, to me, means downtown. My dream spots:
1. Hieronymous Lot, Burlington and Clinton: it'd be ideal, large and easily connected to the new School of Music and about as centrally located as you could get. Plus, there's bonus point from the city point of view- if they're serious about expanding downtown south of Burlington a sparkly, shiny new Art Museum could be the perfect centerpiece for a push south. The downside is that it would probably involve some sort of public-private partnership with Marc Moen whom I believe still has the land. I'm less enthusiastic about that but I could be persuaded of it's awesomeness
2. The Ann Cleary Walkway Option: The Dance Department has wanted the old Art Museum for years- the gallery space would be perfect for studio space so there's an option in the wind to move them across the river, take out Halsey Hall, WRAC and the god forsaken den of architectural hell that is the IMU Ramp- build a new, better ramp and stick the Museum on top of that so that it's entrance is right on the Ann Cleary Walkway. It's on campus, it gets rid of the worst parking ramp ever made and you could easily connect it to the IMU if you need space for receptions, conferences and other events. It's one of the highest traffic areas on campus.
3. Take The Mall Already: Could be the easiest and most cost effective option of the three. The University is going to take the Old Capitol Mall anyway at some point, so why not now? It comes with it's own parking ramp- even the second floor would do the Museum just fine but it's really just kind of a blah notion. A world class collection deserves a world class facility and this wouldn't be it but if it gets the Art Museum back to campus with the space it needs so in a pinch (of the budgetary variety) it could be acceptable.Second, I have to jump on Mother Cigar's bandwagon on this one: if part of the Museum's mission is academic in purpose, then one of the coolest things I saw at the Getty in Los Angeles was the room they had with one painting that people could sketch to their hearts content. Interesting touches like that would be awesome. A place for local and Iowa based artists would be cool. An interesting design would also be cool. Really and truly, this collection is a world class collection- I keep saying that, I know but it's true! It's a cultural treasure of the State of Iowa that everybody in this state should be making trips here to come and see! If you design the right building you could create something iconic that could be associated with the University, Iowa City and the entire state of Iowa for a very long time.
Basically: go big or go home.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
'The Call' --A Review
I'm just going to go ahead and spoil the shit out of this movie, so if you actually have a hankering to watch this movie just stop reading now.
OK? Still onboard? Well, here we go: this movie actually was a remarkably pleasant surprise up until the very, very end. The story of a veteran 911 Dispatcher, Jordan played by Halle Berry who takes a call one night from a frantic teenage girl reporting a prowler in her house. Berry makes a convincing Dispatcher right from the get go, getting the girl upstairs, hopefully to find a safe place for her to hide. Unfortunately, the door to the room upstairs doesn't have a lock on it and Jordan takes a gamble, having the girl open the window and then hiding her under the bed in an attempt to fake out the prowler and buy some time for the responding units to get there. Then, Jordan makes a mistake. Everything seems to be going OK and the prowler is leaving and the girl hangs up. Jordan redials without thinking- and the ring gives the girl away and she's kidnapped and killed.
The call, obviously, traumatizes Jordan. Her cop boyfriend (Morris Chestnut) and co-workers are sympathetic but six months later, we find that she's shifted her focus off of the call floor to become a training officer for new Dispatchers. But, as it turns out- the killer is ready to strike again and when Casey Wellson (Abigail Breslin) gets kidnapped from a local mall and a young, rookie 911 operator panics and can't handle the call Jordan finds herself behind a console as the race to find Casey and catch the killer is on.
The vast majority of this movie is awesome. It's tense, pulse-pounding, thrillingly realistic and portrays a Dispatcher doing what they do best- using their resources to assist the police in catching the bad guy. She keeps Casey on the line, keeps her calm, rides out her 're-freak' moments and soon they've got a name on the killer, a description of the car and even though Casey is using a disposable trac phone and they can't get an exact trace they get a general location and even find a creepy cabin where the killer might do his killing and other creepy things but the trail goes cold and there's no sign of Casey.
Jordan is told that she's done a good job (which she did) and told to go home (which is also good advice) and get some rest. Instead, she spends hours and hours (funnily enough, late nights in the Los Angeles Comm center don't seem to involve that many people from what I could see.) listening to the tapes over and over again, trying to figure out what a strange background noise in the call is and then, then, the movie takes a massive crap and Jordan goes out to do some sleuthing of her own.
Oddly enough, I was OK with that part. I think there's a natural tendency in Dispatchers to want closure and to actually go and see some of the places they hear about on the phone to get a sense of the geography and internalize a picture of the place in their heads. Her going out there bends the narrative a bit but doesn't break it. When she finds a creepy bunker and drops her phone down the hole and then continues into the bunker instead of climbing a ladder back out and calling 911 then the narrative begins to break down. Of course, she frees Casey and defeats the serial killer and then the movie collapses into a gigantic pile of manure when she and Casey decide to chain him to a chair and leave him in his creepy bunker to die.
What's frustrating about this movie is that it was so, so close to being a tight, pulse-pounding thriller that might have actually been original and maybe even innovative- using a Dispatcher as the main protagonist and having her help solve a kidnapping without ever being in the same room as the person kidnapped. The Comm Center felt realistic, Halle Berry's character felt authentic as a Dispatcher and even the methods she uses to establish control over the call and help Casey ride out her 're-freak' moments all ring true. I did want to strangle the newbie that freaked out when she initially took the kidnapping call- I mean, calm down, take a breath and control the damn call already. But I suppose if she hadn't freaked out, then Halle Berry's character wouldn't have had a reason to take over the call for her- so I guess I'll let that one slide.
Overall: ** 1/2 out of **** I'm sorry, I just can't give this three stars. I wish I could and I hate seeing a movie take a gigantic dump into stupidity after being genuinely good for long stretches of time. It's heartening to see Dispatchers get some love from Hollywood though and from what I could see, they seemed to have done their homework about the job which I appreciate. Though I have to say, my job is interesting- but not 'get to stab creepy serial killers in the back and leave them to die in a bunker somewhere' interesting.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
This Week In Vexillology #36
Kids, grab your crab cakes, pop in a John Waters movie, get your stuffed Edgar Allen Poe raven ready to go because this week, we're staying stateside with Maryland!
Since we're heading into the long 4th of July Weekend, I thought why not follow up our Flag Day Edition of This Week In Vexillology with just one state in honor of our nation's birthday on the 4th of July. Now, before people start saying I have anything against Old Glory: I don't. I'm just going to assume that you, the reader, know what our flag stands for and don't need me to explain it to you! (If you don't know, for some weird, weird reason please turn in your passport and head north or south to the nearest international border because, well, there's not a lot of hope for you.)
This year, Maryland gets the top spot. I like the flag of Maryland. It's got one of the coolest flag of any state in the union and it's unique because it's the only flag to be taken from English Heraldry. Yes, the flag of Maryland (which inspired such derision when these uniforms made an appearance at the University of Maryland) is the heraldic banner of George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore.
The black and gold on the flag is from the coat of arms of the Calvert family, while the red and white cross is from the coat of arms of his mother. Since his mother was an heiress under what I'm sure are the massively complicated rules of English heraldry he was allowed to use both coats of arms in the banner. (The technical term for the red and white design is a cross bottany, by the way.)
The infamous NAVA survey which was so down on our trio of state flags for Flag Day? They ranked Maryland 4th best in design quality out of 72 states and Canadian provinces.
I hope everyone had an amazing 4th of July with friends and family- and remember, until next time- keep your flags flying. FREAK- or otherwise.
Since we're heading into the long 4th of July Weekend, I thought why not follow up our Flag Day Edition of This Week In Vexillology with just one state in honor of our nation's birthday on the 4th of July. Now, before people start saying I have anything against Old Glory: I don't. I'm just going to assume that you, the reader, know what our flag stands for and don't need me to explain it to you! (If you don't know, for some weird, weird reason please turn in your passport and head north or south to the nearest international border because, well, there's not a lot of hope for you.)
This year, Maryland gets the top spot. I like the flag of Maryland. It's got one of the coolest flag of any state in the union and it's unique because it's the only flag to be taken from English Heraldry. Yes, the flag of Maryland (which inspired such derision when these uniforms made an appearance at the University of Maryland) is the heraldic banner of George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore.
The black and gold on the flag is from the coat of arms of the Calvert family, while the red and white cross is from the coat of arms of his mother. Since his mother was an heiress under what I'm sure are the massively complicated rules of English heraldry he was allowed to use both coats of arms in the banner. (The technical term for the red and white design is a cross bottany, by the way.)
The infamous NAVA survey which was so down on our trio of state flags for Flag Day? They ranked Maryland 4th best in design quality out of 72 states and Canadian provinces.
I hope everyone had an amazing 4th of July with friends and family- and remember, until next time- keep your flags flying. FREAK- or otherwise.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
21 Is Back. I'm Voting No.
Sigh.
I suppose it was inevitable. Yes, Iowa City's 21-only ordinance is, in all likelihood heading back to the polls in November which means we're going to have another go round of the tiresome never-ending debate about Iowa City's bar culture.
Look, I'm not immune to the very real point that if you're old enough to have sex, smoke, fight and potentially die for your country you should be able to have a beer. But this ordinance will not in any way, shape or form change the drinking age. Arguing that it will or that it's a 'point worth making' seem like non-starters to me. If you really want to change the drinking age, start lobbying folks in Des Moines. That I'd support.
The second argument is going to revolve around the impact on local businesses. As far as I can tell, it's been negligible at best. Pizza On Dubuque had to move and claimed it was because they lost business after the 21 only ordinance passed but a walk by P.O.D. on a Thursday night and there seemed to be no shortage of customers so I'm not convinced. (And they did find a new home on Iowa Avenue, just around the corner so it's not like they closed or even had to move that far.) Hmmm... what else? One Eyed Jake's closed down. Oh my. What a blow that was. Which brings me to my point:
What makes a bar, a bar? To me, a bar is a place for eating, drinking, socialization, good music and dancing-- a place where you can have a good conversation with your friends. Pre-21, Iowa City had two strata of bars (at least from where I'm sitting) you had the real bars and then you had places like Jake's which was a gigantic room that sold cheap beer. (The one time I ventured into Jake's, everything was sticky and I had the creepy sensation that an STD was trying to crawl up my leg and when I left, I wanted to go home, take a shower and burn all my clothes.)
We could use less bars like that- and my contention remains that 21-only hasn't hurt Iowa City's bar culture, it's forced it to raise it's game. So I'll be voting against the repeal- and you should too.
I suppose it was inevitable. Yes, Iowa City's 21-only ordinance is, in all likelihood heading back to the polls in November which means we're going to have another go round of the tiresome never-ending debate about Iowa City's bar culture.
Look, I'm not immune to the very real point that if you're old enough to have sex, smoke, fight and potentially die for your country you should be able to have a beer. But this ordinance will not in any way, shape or form change the drinking age. Arguing that it will or that it's a 'point worth making' seem like non-starters to me. If you really want to change the drinking age, start lobbying folks in Des Moines. That I'd support.
The second argument is going to revolve around the impact on local businesses. As far as I can tell, it's been negligible at best. Pizza On Dubuque had to move and claimed it was because they lost business after the 21 only ordinance passed but a walk by P.O.D. on a Thursday night and there seemed to be no shortage of customers so I'm not convinced. (And they did find a new home on Iowa Avenue, just around the corner so it's not like they closed or even had to move that far.) Hmmm... what else? One Eyed Jake's closed down. Oh my. What a blow that was. Which brings me to my point:
What makes a bar, a bar? To me, a bar is a place for eating, drinking, socialization, good music and dancing-- a place where you can have a good conversation with your friends. Pre-21, Iowa City had two strata of bars (at least from where I'm sitting) you had the real bars and then you had places like Jake's which was a gigantic room that sold cheap beer. (The one time I ventured into Jake's, everything was sticky and I had the creepy sensation that an STD was trying to crawl up my leg and when I left, I wanted to go home, take a shower and burn all my clothes.)
We could use less bars like that- and my contention remains that 21-only hasn't hurt Iowa City's bar culture, it's forced it to raise it's game. So I'll be voting against the repeal- and you should too.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Please Stop. It's Not Even 2014 Yet.
This seriously needs to stop. I'm seeing way, way too much speculation about possible candidates for a 2106 Presidential run for my liking, which just seems totally ludicrous to me. After all, it's not even 2014 yet for one and for two, at this point, can anyone think of any name that has a chance of really doing anything substantially different or even useful with the job?
Right now, I can't. I hope that person is out there- but really, I'd settle for competence with a dash of utilitarianism at this point. There was a list of potential saviors floating around on Reddit (I can't find the link now- and I really can't be bothered to dig around for it) that seemed to include only Senators and mainly Democratic ones at that- with only Senator Mike Lee making the cut for the GOPers.
Sarah Palin is busy floating the idea of leaving the Republican Party for a possible third party run and GOPers are trying to paint Hillary Clinton as 'old news' for 2016- emphasis on the old. (That latter point makes me laugh a little. How old was Ronald Reagan?)
With all of that in mind, here is my ridiculously early formula for 2016. And once you read this, you won't be reading anything about 2016 until 2015 at the earliest. Sound like a deal to you, kids? Good- so here goes:
1. Until President Obama was elected, the last Senator to win the Presidency was LBJ. He broke that streak but the odds of a Congressperson or Senator going the distance is still long. Smart money remains on Governors.
2. Leftys, take a cold shower: there's no way in hell the country is going to vote for a Junior Senator with little to no experience from a very blue state. (It's been working so well for us, after all) Senator Warren, if she's serious about a shot at the big chair, should run for Governor or win re-election first. If she's going to do it, 2020 might be the year. 2016 won't be.
3. The GOPers are wide open next time. The Dems await Hillary Clinton's decision. If Hillary opts out then things get insanely interesting. (Some people think Biden would be a shoe-in but I'm less than convinced.)
4. Don't discount random surprises or the above three points turning out to be completely wrong.
And with my two cents inserted, feel free to continue reading free of mindless speculation about the next Presidential election.
Right now, I can't. I hope that person is out there- but really, I'd settle for competence with a dash of utilitarianism at this point. There was a list of potential saviors floating around on Reddit (I can't find the link now- and I really can't be bothered to dig around for it) that seemed to include only Senators and mainly Democratic ones at that- with only Senator Mike Lee making the cut for the GOPers.
Sarah Palin is busy floating the idea of leaving the Republican Party for a possible third party run and GOPers are trying to paint Hillary Clinton as 'old news' for 2016- emphasis on the old. (That latter point makes me laugh a little. How old was Ronald Reagan?)
With all of that in mind, here is my ridiculously early formula for 2016. And once you read this, you won't be reading anything about 2016 until 2015 at the earliest. Sound like a deal to you, kids? Good- so here goes:
1. Until President Obama was elected, the last Senator to win the Presidency was LBJ. He broke that streak but the odds of a Congressperson or Senator going the distance is still long. Smart money remains on Governors.
2. Leftys, take a cold shower: there's no way in hell the country is going to vote for a Junior Senator with little to no experience from a very blue state. (It's been working so well for us, after all) Senator Warren, if she's serious about a shot at the big chair, should run for Governor or win re-election first. If she's going to do it, 2020 might be the year. 2016 won't be.
3. The GOPers are wide open next time. The Dems await Hillary Clinton's decision. If Hillary opts out then things get insanely interesting. (Some people think Biden would be a shoe-in but I'm less than convinced.)
4. Don't discount random surprises or the above three points turning out to be completely wrong.
And with my two cents inserted, feel free to continue reading free of mindless speculation about the next Presidential election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)