This blog really isn't meant to be some sort of recap of material you can find on The Atlantic, but I found yet another video on their site that was interesting.
Wish I had more time to form and articulate my thoughts on this. But if I tried to make every post perfect and a complete overview of all my thoughts on each subject then my posting would be as frequent as it has been the past few years.
But first of all, I always walked to school growing up. And not because there wasn't transportation available. There were rainy days and other days when we were running late and my mom would give us a ride, but I would say that I walked or rode my bike to elementary school and Jr. high school 95% of the time. I even remember walking home in the rain one day. I was really upset that my mom hadn't picked me up. She replied that she thought I would enjoy walking in the rain. I promptly called child protective services.
I didn't love walking to/from school, but I definitely would like my kids to walk to school, for many of the reasons mentioned in the video. Great exercise. Great way to get to know the neighborhood. You are an overall better human and superior to everyone else.
The video says that less than 10% of kids now walk to school. I would have guessed the figure to actually be lower than that. I don't know why so few walk to school now. Part of me wants to say it all relates to the fact that parents today seem to be overly protective. Which is an area I hesitate to talk about because it's overly discussed and analyzed at this point, and I don't have completely organized thoughts on that subject.
I personally fall on the side of being less protective, which is probably why I want my kids to walk to school. But using the term 'less protective' is so negative and feels terrible. As a parent myself, I have the strong desire to protect your children. But I also think you have to find the balance between understanding when you are actually protecting your child and when you might be hurting your child by stunting their growth because they have had their parent's shadow constantly over them.
I also think that there are unfounded fears and concerns that cause people now to be overly protected. I don't know the reason why that is. A theory that I seem to buy into is that mass media and global media has caused concern. Before you were only aware of news that happened nearby. So with kidnappings for instance, the only time you heard about one was if it happened in your neighborhood. If you grew up in a neighborhood like the one I grew in, that meant you never heard about a kidnapping. Now though, you'll hear about a kidnapping in Cleveland or kids being sold into prostitution in Atlanta.
Before people would only hear about crime in their area and would use the local news to gauge how safe or unsafe their surrounding area is. That arguably isn't even a good gauge for the safety of your community, but it's much better than using the national or world news to gauge how safe your community is. There hasn't been a rise in kidnappings in the past few decades. Violent crime is actually down. But there has been a rise in hearing about violent crime because of global and instant news media.
I suppose that it is good because it lets you know what is going on in the world and keeps you informed. Plus, "just because something happened in Atlanta doesn't mean that it can't happen or isn't happening in your backyard." True, it could happen or perhaps is happening nearby. Not arguing people should be ignorant. But the reality is that it's not really happening, or if it is, it's very rare.
I can't fault someone for not swimming in the ocean in southern California because of the possibility of a shark attack. After all, you hear about shark attacks in Australia or in northern California, so sharks do attack people.
They do, but those areas aren't southern California and even in those areas, the attacks aren't as often as people think.
But attacks have happened in southern California before.
They have. So I can't fault you for not going in the water.
You don't need to go into the ocean to have a complete life. You can have a great life if you don't walk to school. But there is enjoyment and experience to be gained from those experiences, at least in my opinion, and not having them because of the remote risk associated with the activities, just doesn't make much sense to me.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Monday, February 2, 2015
Light Pollution
I saw this video the other day, I really liked it. So much so that I'm writing about it. Here it is:
A couple things and thoughts about this video:
1. I think everyone has thought at some point about how it is unfortunate that you can't see the stars at night and that it's tough to see the night sky because there are constant lights. But every time after I had that thought, I just said, "yep, that's a bummer I can't see stars very well. I'll go back inside and go to bed now." I like the fact that this video doesn't stop there where I and most people stop, but goes to the next step and ponders the question of whether there is any consequence to the fact that we can't see the night sky and what the possible implications are for not being able to see the night sky. I like that. I think asking additional questions is great. Wish I had done it. But happy they did for me.
2. I do sort of buy into some of the issues they raise about having constant light at night. I agree that I think that humans should become more comfortable with the dark. When I say dark, I'm not referring to evil dark, but nighttime dark. I think that there is an innate fear of the dark and it makes sense that we would surround ourselves with as much light as possible in order to avoid being in the dark. But as this video discusses, I don't think that is the appropriate or best response to the innate fear of the dark.
First of all, this isn't deep cave pitch black darkness. It's nighttime darkness and there is a big difference.
But second, I think there is value in facing that innate fear and appreciating it. That doesn't mean everyone has to become comfortable with the dark or like to live in it, but I think appreciating it and finding the good in it instead of avoiding it altogether is valuable. Makes me think of the desert. It's easy to find and see the beauty or good of mountains or beaches or rainforests. But it takes additional attention and effort to appreciate the desert and its beauty. Not the best analogy, but it's what just came to mind.
But I think in the process of being in then nighttime dark and learning to appreciate it relates to the other issue I liked from this video. At the very end they mention the fact that for all of history you could step outside and see the night sky and that the sky inspired art and philosophy and religion and science from the beginning of time. And now for the first time, many people are living in a place without that sight. I don't know my exact thoughts on that comment from the video, but I think it's true. Science still progresses and philosophy and religion still exists, but I think there is an overall collective societal harm from the vast majority of people not seeing the night sky on a regular basis.
People go camping or have moments where they are able to see the sky without city lights and probably have a moment of pondering questions that go beyond when a deadline is for some work assignment. But that's a few days at best and most days are spent in the city lights bubble where you can't see the night sky and all you can see is just faint stars and city lights that illuminate the horizon. And it does make you feel like you are in a bubble. It restricts one from easily seeing that there is a lot in the sky and universe and we thus tend to focus on what is immediately around us. That's not always a bad thing, there are important things around us that need our time and attenion. But those aren't the only things and to just focus on those things severely limits our view on life. Whereas if we are able to expand our focus, we realize that everything doesn't revolve around us, but rather, we are but a small cog in the enormous wheel.
Unfortuntely, we have to make an effort to think about things that are bigger than us and make an effort to look beyond our immediate surroundings. Previously, because of darkness at night, I think it was thrust upon everyone. You couldn't help but notice the night sky and couldn't help but ponder the heavens. And I don't think people make that effort and I do think that it is a detriment to society as a whole. I don't know what that harm is. I'd hesitate to make any sort of conclusion. I think it's difficult to quantify the impact. I just think the important thing is just noting that there is such a thing as light pollution exists and that there is a benefit to spending time without artificial light.
A couple things and thoughts about this video:
1. I think everyone has thought at some point about how it is unfortunate that you can't see the stars at night and that it's tough to see the night sky because there are constant lights. But every time after I had that thought, I just said, "yep, that's a bummer I can't see stars very well. I'll go back inside and go to bed now." I like the fact that this video doesn't stop there where I and most people stop, but goes to the next step and ponders the question of whether there is any consequence to the fact that we can't see the night sky and what the possible implications are for not being able to see the night sky. I like that. I think asking additional questions is great. Wish I had done it. But happy they did for me.
2. I do sort of buy into some of the issues they raise about having constant light at night. I agree that I think that humans should become more comfortable with the dark. When I say dark, I'm not referring to evil dark, but nighttime dark. I think that there is an innate fear of the dark and it makes sense that we would surround ourselves with as much light as possible in order to avoid being in the dark. But as this video discusses, I don't think that is the appropriate or best response to the innate fear of the dark.
First of all, this isn't deep cave pitch black darkness. It's nighttime darkness and there is a big difference.
But second, I think there is value in facing that innate fear and appreciating it. That doesn't mean everyone has to become comfortable with the dark or like to live in it, but I think appreciating it and finding the good in it instead of avoiding it altogether is valuable. Makes me think of the desert. It's easy to find and see the beauty or good of mountains or beaches or rainforests. But it takes additional attention and effort to appreciate the desert and its beauty. Not the best analogy, but it's what just came to mind.
But I think in the process of being in then nighttime dark and learning to appreciate it relates to the other issue I liked from this video. At the very end they mention the fact that for all of history you could step outside and see the night sky and that the sky inspired art and philosophy and religion and science from the beginning of time. And now for the first time, many people are living in a place without that sight. I don't know my exact thoughts on that comment from the video, but I think it's true. Science still progresses and philosophy and religion still exists, but I think there is an overall collective societal harm from the vast majority of people not seeing the night sky on a regular basis.
People go camping or have moments where they are able to see the sky without city lights and probably have a moment of pondering questions that go beyond when a deadline is for some work assignment. But that's a few days at best and most days are spent in the city lights bubble where you can't see the night sky and all you can see is just faint stars and city lights that illuminate the horizon. And it does make you feel like you are in a bubble. It restricts one from easily seeing that there is a lot in the sky and universe and we thus tend to focus on what is immediately around us. That's not always a bad thing, there are important things around us that need our time and attenion. But those aren't the only things and to just focus on those things severely limits our view on life. Whereas if we are able to expand our focus, we realize that everything doesn't revolve around us, but rather, we are but a small cog in the enormous wheel.
Unfortuntely, we have to make an effort to think about things that are bigger than us and make an effort to look beyond our immediate surroundings. Previously, because of darkness at night, I think it was thrust upon everyone. You couldn't help but notice the night sky and couldn't help but ponder the heavens. And I don't think people make that effort and I do think that it is a detriment to society as a whole. I don't know what that harm is. I'd hesitate to make any sort of conclusion. I think it's difficult to quantify the impact. I just think the important thing is just noting that there is such a thing as light pollution exists and that there is a benefit to spending time without artificial light.
Monday, January 26, 2015
100 Books
Amazon's has a list of 100 books to read in a lifetime. I've already read a few of these, which is good because I'm already a few years into my lifetime.
More to come later.
Amazon's list.
More to come later.
Amazon's list.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Real College Crisis
Look at this! A new blog post! It's been about a year so clearly time to get back in the saddle. Not sure if anyone reads this thing or reads blogs in general. They are dying (or are already dead). Given way to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Tumblr to name a few. Which is fine. I find those more enjoyable anyways. But sometimes you have thoughts which are longer than 160 characters or thoughts that don't involve photos of your kids. What to do with those thoughts? Blog them for no one I guess.
I read a lot of stuff on the internet throughout the day. Most of it is garbage. Stuff that is just adding to the "Random Information that is not really useful and may only get used once or twice in your lifetime and only in social and non-educational settings" portion of my brain. Which over the years I think has become the largest part of my brain.
But not everything is useless or garbage. If there is one thing I'm a sucker for that isn't garbage it is articles or information about the rising cost of higher education. It's fascinating to me.
Anyways, an article just came out about the rising cost. It's nothing new. These articles pop up all the time. Consumers are aware of it. Society is aware of it. People ("experts") are warning us about it. Yet the colleges, who are also likely aware of what is going on, are ignoring doing anything about it presumably because, "Hey, the students keep paying the higher price, so why not charge it." For whatever reason people treat college like Disneyland. No matter how absurd the admission price is, people won't even question it and will just open their wallet and hand over their money. (Speaking of Disneyland, based upon the description of some of these schools, they sound about as entertaining as the Happiest Place on Earth).
Two fun excerpts that I enjoyed that seemed too long to post on Facebook. By the way, at first I was reluctant to blog this because I felt that if I didn't post about it on FB no one would read it. But then I remembered that no one reads anything on FB anyways. Sometimes you click on links, but mostly you just scroll through the news feed to remind yourself that even though life isn't as great as some people, it's not nearly as pathetic and lame as other people.
Here is the article:
Here's an interesting stat from the article about how much tuition has gone up at Auburn, which I'm pretty sure is on track with most every other school:
"The Auburn trustees who approved Gogue’s salary also recently voted to increase next year's student tuition by 4.5 percent, on top of an 8 percent increase last year and a 13 percent increase in 2010."
A 25.5% increase over a 3 year span? That's just unbelievable and unsustainable. Unsustainable meaning that I'm sure they haven't provided their graduates with jobs that pay 25% more than the jobs their graduates from 3 years ago received.
So generous of them to only increase it by 4.5% this year after increasing it by 21% over the past two years. Tuition of course should have gone down over the past 5 years when the economy was in the tank and no one could get jobs. But no chance any school will ever drop their cost of tuition.
If you read the article it explains where a lot of the money goes - to unnecessary things. Which is fine. If there is one thing the housing bubble taught us it is to live large while the money is pouring in because the money will always be there.
"Looking for a rec center with an acre of cardio and weight machines like the ones used at the Beijing Olympics? Then UMass Amherst could be the school for you. The aquatic enthusiast should head to the University of Cincinnati, whose rec center promises "850,000 gallons of fun," with three indoor pools, a vortex, a bubble couch (whatever that is), and a current channel for those "looking for an upstream workout.” The University of Iowa’s $72 million rec center also has a vortex, a massive climbing wall, 72 tread mills with TVs, a 25-person hot tub, and a “club level” locker room with a biometric hand scanner for extra security."
Maybe I'm off with all of this. Maybe a lifetime of debt and having to pass on getting a home or a nice car because you can't afford one with all your student loan debt is worth 4 years of sharing a vortex pool with 20,000 other people.
Here is the part that goes without saying and what fascinates me about the rising cost of tuition: money (or students) won't always be there because iIt's another bubble only this bubble is so obvious coming on the heels of the last one. But people seem to be ignoring it and yet like all bubbles, they eventually pop and are a sticky mess.
“It’s very similar to housing loans in that the federal government is contributing to this by making it easy to borrow,” he said. “It's a bubble, but it's a different kind of bubble in the sense that it can't go on like this. Eventually you hit the wall."
Sounds like fun.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Call Me Maybe
By now most everyone has probably heard the Carly Rae Jepsen song "Call Me Maybe." What's sort of crazy is that there is a good chance you first heard the song in a YouTube video. Apparently soon after the song came out Justin Bieber and his friends filmed themselves lip syncing this song. Like everything Bieber does, it blew up on the internet and twitter and on the youtube and spawned a movement where everyone makes their own music video to this song. (It's actually pretty incredible the impact and influence Bieber has on popular culture. Love him or hate him, he's a internet and twitter freight train that can't be contained).
My younger brother and his friends a couple months ago made their own music to the song because they are in college and that's the type of stuff you do in college. It's actually pretty entertaining. Although I'm still not sure if that's because it is actually entertaining or just because I know someone in the video. Sort of like when Dave and I podcasted back in the day and people would say they enjoyed the podcast, which was nice. But all of those people were friends or family that knew Dave and I. So their input/response, although appreciated, didn't really indicate if our podcast was any good. It's one thing to be entertaining your wife or people you know, but even if you are, it doesn't mean you are entertaining to 300 complete strangers.
Anyways, as usual, I digress.
I bring this all up because I saw another video today of the Call Me Maybe song that was entertaining. It's by Jimmy Fallon and the Roots so they are professionals. It also features the girl that actually sang the song. But it's still pretty fun.
Biebs:
Lance and his Crew:
Jimmy and Roots:
Has a very organic feel to it. Sort of reminds me of this video by Arcade Fire:
My younger brother and his friends a couple months ago made their own music to the song because they are in college and that's the type of stuff you do in college. It's actually pretty entertaining. Although I'm still not sure if that's because it is actually entertaining or just because I know someone in the video. Sort of like when Dave and I podcasted back in the day and people would say they enjoyed the podcast, which was nice. But all of those people were friends or family that knew Dave and I. So their input/response, although appreciated, didn't really indicate if our podcast was any good. It's one thing to be entertaining your wife or people you know, but even if you are, it doesn't mean you are entertaining to 300 complete strangers.
Anyways, as usual, I digress.
I bring this all up because I saw another video today of the Call Me Maybe song that was entertaining. It's by Jimmy Fallon and the Roots so they are professionals. It also features the girl that actually sang the song. But it's still pretty fun.
Biebs:
Lance and his Crew:
Jimmy and Roots:
Has a very organic feel to it. Sort of reminds me of this video by Arcade Fire:
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Masterpiece Mystery: Sherlock
A couple months ago, Nellie set our DVR to record the Downtown Abbey series on PBS. For whatever reason though, our DVR recorded every program on PBS with the word "Masterpiece" in the title. If this also happened to you, then your DVR was also likely clogged with a bunch of nonsense and poppycock PBS programming. But it also likely recorded a few episodes of Sherlock Holmes, which isn't poppycock, but awesomeness.
It's a modern day version of Sherlock Holmes and frankly, it's highly entertaining. Here is the episode we saw on Sunday.
After seeing one episode we were hooked and I was thinking about putting in a plug for it for my six readers. I then became lazy and wasn't going to mention it. Then I heard about this and I knew I had to make some sort of plug for it.
Apparently, our counterparts here in America are planning on rolling out their own version of the show this fall. Now, we Americans can do what we want. I'm not mentioning the BBC show so that I can sound cool or hip like some fan of an indie band that was a loyalist long before the band was popular or sold out and "went mainstream" (aka – did what every band seeks out to do and creates a successful record that sells a lot of copies and makes the band a lot of money).
Obviously, I haven't seen an episode of the American version yet, so I can't bash it. But just based on the preview I'm guessing that this series will be much like The Office where the American version is decent and may eventually be great, but at least initially pales in comparison to its original British counterpart. Although I will say I have serious doubts about the show considering they are calling it "Elementary." Weak.
Anyways, the British show is already in its second season. Like all British sitcoms, they aren't traditional American seasons and this season only has three episodes. However, each episode is an hour and a half long, without commercials. So even if there are only three episodes, you are still getting hours of excellent entertainment. Plus, since the second season finishes off this Sunday, there are plenty of hours for you to watch between the first season and catching up with this season. Right now you can actually watch the first two episodes online. I promise it's more enjoyable than Facebooking.
Another reason to watch: Watson is played by Martin Freeman, who was in the British version of The Office and will be The Hobbit.
Also, I'm not the only one plugging this show. Here is a good request for your viewership and explanation of the show.
A great clip of Martin Freeman from The Office. I always wanted a HatFM
It's a modern day version of Sherlock Holmes and frankly, it's highly entertaining. Here is the episode we saw on Sunday.
After seeing one episode we were hooked and I was thinking about putting in a plug for it for my six readers. I then became lazy and wasn't going to mention it. Then I heard about this and I knew I had to make some sort of plug for it.
Apparently, our counterparts here in America are planning on rolling out their own version of the show this fall. Now, we Americans can do what we want. I'm not mentioning the BBC show so that I can sound cool or hip like some fan of an indie band that was a loyalist long before the band was popular or sold out and "went mainstream" (aka – did what every band seeks out to do and creates a successful record that sells a lot of copies and makes the band a lot of money).
Obviously, I haven't seen an episode of the American version yet, so I can't bash it. But just based on the preview I'm guessing that this series will be much like The Office where the American version is decent and may eventually be great, but at least initially pales in comparison to its original British counterpart. Although I will say I have serious doubts about the show considering they are calling it "Elementary." Weak.
Anyways, the British show is already in its second season. Like all British sitcoms, they aren't traditional American seasons and this season only has three episodes. However, each episode is an hour and a half long, without commercials. So even if there are only three episodes, you are still getting hours of excellent entertainment. Plus, since the second season finishes off this Sunday, there are plenty of hours for you to watch between the first season and catching up with this season. Right now you can actually watch the first two episodes online. I promise it's more enjoyable than Facebooking.
Another reason to watch: Watson is played by Martin Freeman, who was in the British version of The Office and will be The Hobbit.
Also, I'm not the only one plugging this show. Here is a good request for your viewership and explanation of the show.
A great clip of Martin Freeman from The Office. I always wanted a HatFM
Monday, April 23, 2012
Greg Ham
They say celebrities die in threes. Last week news broke that Dick Clark had died. The following day some member of The Band died. Not Dick Clark's band, he didn't have a band as far as I know. Apparently there is a music group named The Band and a member of their group died.
I had no idea The Band existed. I may have known or read about them at some point but been confused by the very unassuming and quite bland name. Reminds me of the clip from That Thing You Do where Lenny suggests they name their band The Band You Are About to Hear.
Anyways, that same day, news broke that Greg Ham died. Greg Ham is of course responsible for arguably the most famous and recognizable flute solos ever.
I'm actually being 100% honest with that last sentence. If someone told you to think of a flute rift or solo, chances are this would be one of the first things, if not the first thing to pop in your mind:
By the way, Men at Work's Land Down Under is quite possibly the greatest music video of all time that is absolutely terrible. They literally act out every single lyric. Not some of the lyrics or part of the song, but everything.
Some gems:
0:30: The lady that "takes him in and made him breakfast" and feeds him "Vitos E." Not eggs and fruit or something fancy, but Vitos E. In the middle of the desert. Makes sense.
0:50: Flute solo in the thicket.
1:07: The 6'4" man full of "muscles"
Speaking of the big Brussels man. I'm confused by that entire sequence. The big man doesn't understand him, but then gives him a vegimite sandwich and starts saying that he comes from a land down under. For not understanding him, the big man sure knew what the guy wanted/liked (vegimite sandwich and beer) and also knew how to sing pretty well. Not really sure where the miscommunication occurred.
1:37-2:03: Twenty-six seconds is entirely too long to show guys fake shoveling sand and then hopping away like bunnies. I hope the director was fired.
2:42 - end: Video ends by showing the group walk across the sand for a minute. Apparently the director had run out of ideas. Which isn't saying much considering his only other "idea" was to have them act out the song's lyrics.
So now that Greg Ham is dead, the debate about "best 80's song flute solo by a flautist that is still alive" is essentially over. It belongs to Toto. They now carry the torch for great 80's flautists.
Toto's Africa is at the opposite end of the music video spectrum from Land Down Under. If you don't know what is going on in Land Down Under you are likely blind or deaf. If you could follow Toto's Africa then you are probably a wizard, or you just have more patience and interest than I do.
Here is what I observed: they are in a library which throughout the course of the video slowly is tranforming into Africa. I'm guessing Africa because a globe is spinning and twice stops on Africa. If it only happened once I would just think it was a coincidence and that the library was just turning into any jungle. But when it happens again I think they are trying to tell us that Africa is happening. A man has a piece of a page from a book and is sorting through all of the books looking for where it came from. Just when the guy finds a book titled "Africa" a spear comes into the library and burns a bunch of books including the book with the page he's looking for. I think it's the Africa book but I'm not sure. If it is, it's ironic/unfortunate that a book about Africa, a place with so much rain, was burned. Also, eyeglasses.
Anyways, I bring this up because check out the 2:50 point in the video. Right where you would expect to see someone jamming out on a flute, they show a guy playing the piano! Was there no flute? Was it just a synthesizer on the "flute" setting?! I'm honestly not sure. It would appear that is is a piano, but then at the 3:05 point they show what looks like the shadow of a person playing a flute, except that it might just be arsonist spear guy.
If it was just a synthesizer, it makes Greg Ham's death all the more troubling. With Toto being a fraud, all great 80's flautists died with Mr. Ham. A sad end to a great era.
I had no idea The Band existed. I may have known or read about them at some point but been confused by the very unassuming and quite bland name. Reminds me of the clip from That Thing You Do where Lenny suggests they name their band The Band You Are About to Hear.
Anyways, that same day, news broke that Greg Ham died. Greg Ham is of course responsible for arguably the most famous and recognizable flute solos ever.
I'm actually being 100% honest with that last sentence. If someone told you to think of a flute rift or solo, chances are this would be one of the first things, if not the first thing to pop in your mind:
By the way, Men at Work's Land Down Under is quite possibly the greatest music video of all time that is absolutely terrible. They literally act out every single lyric. Not some of the lyrics or part of the song, but everything.
Some gems:
0:30: The lady that "takes him in and made him breakfast" and feeds him "Vitos E." Not eggs and fruit or something fancy, but Vitos E. In the middle of the desert. Makes sense.
0:50: Flute solo in the thicket.
1:07: The 6'4" man full of "muscles"
Speaking of the big Brussels man. I'm confused by that entire sequence. The big man doesn't understand him, but then gives him a vegimite sandwich and starts saying that he comes from a land down under. For not understanding him, the big man sure knew what the guy wanted/liked (vegimite sandwich and beer) and also knew how to sing pretty well. Not really sure where the miscommunication occurred.
1:37-2:03: Twenty-six seconds is entirely too long to show guys fake shoveling sand and then hopping away like bunnies. I hope the director was fired.
2:42 - end: Video ends by showing the group walk across the sand for a minute. Apparently the director had run out of ideas. Which isn't saying much considering his only other "idea" was to have them act out the song's lyrics.
So now that Greg Ham is dead, the debate about "best 80's song flute solo by a flautist that is still alive" is essentially over. It belongs to Toto. They now carry the torch for great 80's flautists.
Toto's Africa is at the opposite end of the music video spectrum from Land Down Under. If you don't know what is going on in Land Down Under you are likely blind or deaf. If you could follow Toto's Africa then you are probably a wizard, or you just have more patience and interest than I do.
Here is what I observed: they are in a library which throughout the course of the video slowly is tranforming into Africa. I'm guessing Africa because a globe is spinning and twice stops on Africa. If it only happened once I would just think it was a coincidence and that the library was just turning into any jungle. But when it happens again I think they are trying to tell us that Africa is happening. A man has a piece of a page from a book and is sorting through all of the books looking for where it came from. Just when the guy finds a book titled "Africa" a spear comes into the library and burns a bunch of books including the book with the page he's looking for. I think it's the Africa book but I'm not sure. If it is, it's ironic/unfortunate that a book about Africa, a place with so much rain, was burned. Also, eyeglasses.
Anyways, I bring this up because check out the 2:50 point in the video. Right where you would expect to see someone jamming out on a flute, they show a guy playing the piano! Was there no flute? Was it just a synthesizer on the "flute" setting?! I'm honestly not sure. It would appear that is is a piano, but then at the 3:05 point they show what looks like the shadow of a person playing a flute, except that it might just be arsonist spear guy.
If it was just a synthesizer, it makes Greg Ham's death all the more troubling. With Toto being a fraud, all great 80's flautists died with Mr. Ham. A sad end to a great era.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Have a spare 45 minutes?
If so, check out this documentary on Lionel Messi. Even if you aren't a soccer fan, you probably have still heard of Messi. He's the best player in the world and possibly the greatest of all time.
Even if you don't watch the entire video, just watch a couple clips so you can see why Messi is so great. Watch Messi as a little boy playing (1:20, 2:20), then as a youth (9:20) and then compare them to some of his clips as a pro. There are various throughout the video, but the most impressive in my opinion is the one at 28:45. It shows first of all how fast the game is on the professional level. Something you don't always see or appreciate when you are watching it on TV. But it's also remarkable because these are the best players in the world and Messi is running through them just like he did as a kid and a youth. Many kids and youth dominate the opposition and are talented at a young age. But eventually the other kids mature or the competition catches up with them and the playing field levels. Sure, some players are always a little bit better, but Messi has stayed an entire level above even the highest competition. It's really amazing and something only a handful of players in the history of all sports have been able to do.
For awhile there was a debate about who is the best player in the world right now, but like I said Messi has sort of put that discussion to bed and it has moved to whether he is the greatest of all time. What is amazing about that discussion isn't just the fact that you can legitimately compare Messi to the godlike figures of Pele and Maradona, but that Messi is only 24 years old. He has at least 6 more years of his prime left in him. Without offending the gods, it is possible that when Messi retires there won't even be a debate.
Anyways, even if you aren't a soccer fan, it's worth paying attention to Messi, even if just casually. He's the Michael Jordan of soccer. If you had no interest in basketball you would have at least appreciated someone pointing out Jordan and watching some of his games because as a human you can't help but enjoy watching someone perfect and dominate their craft (sort of like watching Mondo on Project Runway).
The only downside to Messi is that he plays for Barcelona, which happen to be the rivals of Real Madrid. I do think that Madrid might be closing the gap on Barcelona and as a team, might soon be able to beat Barcelona. But that is a post for another time, and probably another blog.
Even if you don't watch the entire video, just watch a couple clips so you can see why Messi is so great. Watch Messi as a little boy playing (1:20, 2:20), then as a youth (9:20) and then compare them to some of his clips as a pro. There are various throughout the video, but the most impressive in my opinion is the one at 28:45. It shows first of all how fast the game is on the professional level. Something you don't always see or appreciate when you are watching it on TV. But it's also remarkable because these are the best players in the world and Messi is running through them just like he did as a kid and a youth. Many kids and youth dominate the opposition and are talented at a young age. But eventually the other kids mature or the competition catches up with them and the playing field levels. Sure, some players are always a little bit better, but Messi has stayed an entire level above even the highest competition. It's really amazing and something only a handful of players in the history of all sports have been able to do.
For awhile there was a debate about who is the best player in the world right now, but like I said Messi has sort of put that discussion to bed and it has moved to whether he is the greatest of all time. What is amazing about that discussion isn't just the fact that you can legitimately compare Messi to the godlike figures of Pele and Maradona, but that Messi is only 24 years old. He has at least 6 more years of his prime left in him. Without offending the gods, it is possible that when Messi retires there won't even be a debate.
Anyways, even if you aren't a soccer fan, it's worth paying attention to Messi, even if just casually. He's the Michael Jordan of soccer. If you had no interest in basketball you would have at least appreciated someone pointing out Jordan and watching some of his games because as a human you can't help but enjoy watching someone perfect and dominate their craft (sort of like watching Mondo on Project Runway).
The only downside to Messi is that he plays for Barcelona, which happen to be the rivals of Real Madrid. I do think that Madrid might be closing the gap on Barcelona and as a team, might soon be able to beat Barcelona. But that is a post for another time, and probably another blog.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
MJ Super Bowl
The Super Bowl is this weekend. There are various lists across the internet providing the top 10 Super Bowl Halftime shows. I was looking at a couple of them - because that is what you do when you are on the internet - look at other people's lists, and I noticed that Michael Jackson did a halftime show back in 1993.
Not surprisingly, most of the commentary on the show is that MJ reinvented halftime shows and turned them into what they are today - 10 minute over-the-top, no holds barred, spectaculars.
So in preparation for the big game on Sunday, let's breakdown MJ's legendary performance from almost 20 years ago.
0:01 - A countdown. Awesome.
0:03 - James Earl Jones is the intro man - the Morgan Freeman of the 80's and 90's. Was there an official passing of the torch there? Is James Earl Jones dead? Because once Freeman took over, JEJ has fallen off the planet.
0:26 - Cameraman 2 was thrown off by the intro music. Zoomed in too early. Producer: "What the... quick, back to Camera 1. C2, you idiot!"
0:38: Ok, now zoom C2.
0:46: Aw snap! It's MJ on the jumbotron.
0:57: Psyche! No it's not. That was just a stuntdouble. By the way, how did one become an MJ stunt double? Were these the last people to get cut from the backup dance crew?
1:11: Michael emerges.
I wonder how the discussion went with the choreographer during the planning of the show:
C: Ok Michael, so then you will emerge from the stage. There will be sparklers and stuff of course. And then you will hold your pose. How long do you want to hold your pose? 10 seconds? 20? 30 tops?
MJ: I will hold it for at least a minute. After that I will take another minute to move my head and take off my sunglasses.
C: Um, yeah, this isn't a regular concert. We only have 13 minutes for the entire show. Pretty sure we shouldn't dedicate a sixth of the time to you just standing there motionless.
2:08: He's still motionless.
2:24: Apparently not dead.
2:41: Also apparently not that bright outside.
2:43: Cue the electric guitar from the... HOLY HANNAH WHAT IS THAT THING? Best guess is it's an extra from The Lion King. There is no way of knowing though if it's male or female. Impossible to determine.
3:05: The crowd in the foreground is doing the classic Michael Jackson song dance move which is just to sort of jump and or shake your body wildly because as great as MJ songs are, the only way to dance to them is to dance like MJ and since only about 1% of the population can do that, the rest of us are left to just flail our arms and hope nobody is watching. Unfortunately for these people, the U.S. was watching.
3:30: And scene. Quick change, cue the hat and drum beat. Let the hip thrusting begin.
4:25: No matter how many impersonators you will see over the years, no one does it quite like him.
4:55: The Lion King is making its move onto the stage. I'm hoping the song culminates in a King of Pop v. King of the Jungle battle royale. Granted, MJ is a lover not a fighter, so this likely won't happen.
5:22: Go back up dancers.
5:37: "Five, six, seven, and...point to the crowd!"
6:05: I wonder if MJ's nose ever blew off while standing on one of those wind vents. It had to have worried him.
6:20: Some guy wearing one of those fake mustaches with glasses just grabbed a little screen time.
6:25: Black or white? How about male or female? Please settle this.
6:42: The Super Bowl, sponsored by United Way.
8:00: How awesome would it be if MJ ditched the rest of his performance and just got out a football and tried to kick a field goal from the stage? How far do you think it would go? I'm guessing no more than 15 yards. I don't even think it would make it off the stage.
Not surprisingly, most of the commentary on the show is that MJ reinvented halftime shows and turned them into what they are today - 10 minute over-the-top, no holds barred, spectaculars.
So in preparation for the big game on Sunday, let's breakdown MJ's legendary performance from almost 20 years ago.
0:01 - A countdown. Awesome.
0:03 - James Earl Jones is the intro man - the Morgan Freeman of the 80's and 90's. Was there an official passing of the torch there? Is James Earl Jones dead? Because once Freeman took over, JEJ has fallen off the planet.
0:26 - Cameraman 2 was thrown off by the intro music. Zoomed in too early. Producer: "What the... quick, back to Camera 1. C2, you idiot!"
0:38: Ok, now zoom C2.
0:46: Aw snap! It's MJ on the jumbotron.
0:57: Psyche! No it's not. That was just a stuntdouble. By the way, how did one become an MJ stunt double? Were these the last people to get cut from the backup dance crew?
1:11: Michael emerges.
I wonder how the discussion went with the choreographer during the planning of the show:
C: Ok Michael, so then you will emerge from the stage. There will be sparklers and stuff of course. And then you will hold your pose. How long do you want to hold your pose? 10 seconds? 20? 30 tops?
MJ: I will hold it for at least a minute. After that I will take another minute to move my head and take off my sunglasses.
C: Um, yeah, this isn't a regular concert. We only have 13 minutes for the entire show. Pretty sure we shouldn't dedicate a sixth of the time to you just standing there motionless.
2:08: He's still motionless.
2:24: Apparently not dead.
2:41: Also apparently not that bright outside.
2:43: Cue the electric guitar from the... HOLY HANNAH WHAT IS THAT THING? Best guess is it's an extra from The Lion King. There is no way of knowing though if it's male or female. Impossible to determine.
3:05: The crowd in the foreground is doing the classic Michael Jackson song dance move which is just to sort of jump and or shake your body wildly because as great as MJ songs are, the only way to dance to them is to dance like MJ and since only about 1% of the population can do that, the rest of us are left to just flail our arms and hope nobody is watching. Unfortunately for these people, the U.S. was watching.
3:30: And scene. Quick change, cue the hat and drum beat. Let the hip thrusting begin.
4:25: No matter how many impersonators you will see over the years, no one does it quite like him.
4:55: The Lion King is making its move onto the stage. I'm hoping the song culminates in a King of Pop v. King of the Jungle battle royale. Granted, MJ is a lover not a fighter, so this likely won't happen.
5:22: Go back up dancers.
5:37: "Five, six, seven, and...point to the crowd!"
6:05: I wonder if MJ's nose ever blew off while standing on one of those wind vents. It had to have worried him.
6:20: Some guy wearing one of those fake mustaches with glasses just grabbed a little screen time.
6:25: Black or white? How about male or female? Please settle this.
6:42: The Super Bowl, sponsored by United Way.
8:00: How awesome would it be if MJ ditched the rest of his performance and just got out a football and tried to kick a field goal from the stage? How far do you think it would go? I'm guessing no more than 15 yards. I don't even think it would make it off the stage.
8:20: Not really sure what to say here. MJ is holding what appears to be a magic wand of sorts. He uses it to make children appear. All jokes seem too easy and likely to cross the line quickly. We'll just respect the dead (and molested) and move on.
8:50: Apparently the Nickelodeon Rugrats are also sponsoring the Superbowl. I wonder if Doug and Ren and Stimpy will also be featured.
9:30: I mean, I honestly feel like MJ is a sincere guy and all, just not the choicest words since we know that in a few months he is going to be charged with child molestation.
8:50: Apparently the Nickelodeon Rugrats are also sponsoring the Superbowl. I wonder if Doug and Ren and Stimpy will also be featured.
9:30: I mean, I honestly feel like MJ is a sincere guy and all, just not the choicest words since we know that in a few months he is going to be charged with child molestation.
9:55: Cue the children.
10:01: Was that a boy in lederhosen? Das good.
10:25: Looks like they have children dressed in costumes from all over the world...and also a few adults in solid green Ross sweatshirts. They are pretending to be helpers but really just jockeying for position and trying to get some face time. MJ will not be happy if he's not surrounded entirely by children.
11:09: "Peace bud. Peace."
11:22: Here come the United Way graduates.
12:26: Let's be honest, would I have preferred some sort of Beat It/Smooth Criminal/Bad/The Dog-gone Girl Is Mine Medley. At the same time, it is quite an amazing production. He literally has the entire stadium involved. Scores of people singing and then everyone in the crowd holding up some sort of poster. Pretty impressive. I bet the athletes were jealous they didn't get to participate.
So there you have it. The production that started it all. Your move Madonna.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Russian Schooling
I read this article in the NY Times the other day. It is a fascinating story about a NY Times correspondent that moved to Russia for a few years. He discusses their decision to put their kids, who don't know any Russian at all, in the Russian school system as opposed to in an international school where they would speak and teach in English.
"But when I became a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, my wife and I decided that we wanted to immerse them in life abroad. No international schools where the instruction is in English. Ours would go to a local one, with real Russians. When we told friends in Brooklyn of our plans, they tended to say things like, Wow, you’re so brave. But we knew what they were really thinking: What are you, crazy?"
I'm pretty sure that I would want to do the same thing with my kids, but I doubt that I would actually be able to go through with it. I think it would be a great experience for my kids to experience living in another country and in another culture and to be fully immersed in that culture. I've met plenty of people who lived in other countries, but hardly knew anything about that country because they spent their few years in that country mostly speaking and associating with English speaking people. Sure, they knew more about the country than I did, but their experience seemed to be vastly different than that of these kids.
I think the key for making something like this work, would be finding the right school. The founder/headmaster of this school and the teachers sound excellent.
"When Bogin [founder] was growing up in the Soviet era, the party used schools to mold loyal Communists. Teachers wove propaganda through the lessons and enforced memorization like drill sergeants. Bogin detested it. “I didn’t want to be a slave,” he told me. “I didn’t want to be a person who is ordered and must obey the orders without any thinking. I didn’t consider myself to be a person who repeats texts without any criticism or thinking or any alternatives.
Just as political dissidents fought the Soviet regime, so, too, did others oppose the educational system. Bogin was one of them. After studying English in college and serving in the army, he decided to become the kind of teacher he craved as a child. At a school in the Moscow suburbs in the late 1980s, he challenged pupils to challenge him — and everyone else...
"When I asked Bogin to explain Shchedrovitsky, he asked a question. “Does 2 + 2 = 4? No! Because two cats plus two sausages is what? Two cats. Two drops of water plus two drops of water? One drop of water.”
From there, the theories became more complex. In practice, though, the philosophy meant that Bogin delighted in barraging children with word problems and puzzles to force them to think broadly. It was the opposite of the rote memorization of the Soviet system."
Love it.
And a great story about one of the teachers:
"At the beginning of the year, the other children treated Danya, Arden and Emmett as curiosities. They occasionally mocked the three for their mangled syntax, though the school cracked down on that. Bogin even devised a ploy for Emmett’s class: one of the school’s English teachers conducted a lesson entirely in English. “This is what every day is like for Emmett,” the teacher explained. One boy was so tormented trying to follow along that he burst into tears."
Brilliant.
Anyways, it's a great read. The kids naturally start off completely lost and discouraged and come home in tears. The parents question whether they should pull them out of school and if they made the right decision. They almost pull them out after one day but decide to stick by the decision and three years later when they are leaving Russia the kids are fluent in Russian and have made great friendships.
Reading this story made me ponder a few things. First of all, it just reminds me of how resilient people, and especially children can be. They clearly struggled and life was really difficult, but they stuck with it and their decision and I think the entire family would agree that they were glad they did.
I think we as a society, or at least as adults, shun or are embarrassed by struggling or failing. Even though it really is part of life. I'm reminded of this with Win. I know it is small and trivial stuff that he does, but it is inspiring to watch him grow. His life is full of struggles and failures at the moment. He spent weeks just trying to pull himself up to a standing position. Even when he does, he still falls over sometimes. He will usually cry for a bit. But once he is better, he tries again. And again. And again until he gets it. And when he does, he is so proud. He spent weeks trying to pull himself up in his crib. When he finally could do it he was so excited it took him a few hours to finally go to sleep. We would put him on his back and he would just flip over and pull himself up and giggle with excitement that he had finally done it.
The other thing this article made me think about was what I mentioned above about how many people, including myself, would actually do what this family did. It made me think about the many immigrants and people that come to the US and what they must be going through. Granted, I have lived in another country and struggled to learn the language and assimilate myself into the culture. But that was all part of the program I signed up for. This family didn't have to do what they did. There were plenty of English-speaking international schools they could have attended.
I guess I just often look at immigrants and think that if they would just learn the language and try to be more American, then life would be easier for them. First of all, I think many are trying and it's just not easy. And second, I'm already pretty sure that if I went to Russia I wouldn't do what this family did and I would likely spend my three years there partially getting involved with the culture, but also spending a lot of time with any English speaking acquaintances I made. I'm pretty sure most Americans would do the same.
Anyways, I'm not trying to get preachy and this isn't some sort of pro-Dream Act or immigrants rights blog post or anything. I don't know if I have a specific point. Just had one of those moments where my perspective was altered a bit and I realized I can't completely fault some people for their behavior because I'm not sure I would do differently if I was in their situation. I know I, and they, would be better off if they did; as demonstrated by this article. I guess I'm still a little too proud and afraid to struggle and fail. I need to better follow Win's example.
"But when I became a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, my wife and I decided that we wanted to immerse them in life abroad. No international schools where the instruction is in English. Ours would go to a local one, with real Russians. When we told friends in Brooklyn of our plans, they tended to say things like, Wow, you’re so brave. But we knew what they were really thinking: What are you, crazy?"
I'm pretty sure that I would want to do the same thing with my kids, but I doubt that I would actually be able to go through with it. I think it would be a great experience for my kids to experience living in another country and in another culture and to be fully immersed in that culture. I've met plenty of people who lived in other countries, but hardly knew anything about that country because they spent their few years in that country mostly speaking and associating with English speaking people. Sure, they knew more about the country than I did, but their experience seemed to be vastly different than that of these kids.
I think the key for making something like this work, would be finding the right school. The founder/headmaster of this school and the teachers sound excellent.
"When Bogin [founder] was growing up in the Soviet era, the party used schools to mold loyal Communists. Teachers wove propaganda through the lessons and enforced memorization like drill sergeants. Bogin detested it. “I didn’t want to be a slave,” he told me. “I didn’t want to be a person who is ordered and must obey the orders without any thinking. I didn’t consider myself to be a person who repeats texts without any criticism or thinking or any alternatives.
Just as political dissidents fought the Soviet regime, so, too, did others oppose the educational system. Bogin was one of them. After studying English in college and serving in the army, he decided to become the kind of teacher he craved as a child. At a school in the Moscow suburbs in the late 1980s, he challenged pupils to challenge him — and everyone else...
"When I asked Bogin to explain Shchedrovitsky, he asked a question. “Does 2 + 2 = 4? No! Because two cats plus two sausages is what? Two cats. Two drops of water plus two drops of water? One drop of water.”
From there, the theories became more complex. In practice, though, the philosophy meant that Bogin delighted in barraging children with word problems and puzzles to force them to think broadly. It was the opposite of the rote memorization of the Soviet system."
Love it.
And a great story about one of the teachers:
"At the beginning of the year, the other children treated Danya, Arden and Emmett as curiosities. They occasionally mocked the three for their mangled syntax, though the school cracked down on that. Bogin even devised a ploy for Emmett’s class: one of the school’s English teachers conducted a lesson entirely in English. “This is what every day is like for Emmett,” the teacher explained. One boy was so tormented trying to follow along that he burst into tears."
Brilliant.
Anyways, it's a great read. The kids naturally start off completely lost and discouraged and come home in tears. The parents question whether they should pull them out of school and if they made the right decision. They almost pull them out after one day but decide to stick by the decision and three years later when they are leaving Russia the kids are fluent in Russian and have made great friendships.
Reading this story made me ponder a few things. First of all, it just reminds me of how resilient people, and especially children can be. They clearly struggled and life was really difficult, but they stuck with it and their decision and I think the entire family would agree that they were glad they did.
I think we as a society, or at least as adults, shun or are embarrassed by struggling or failing. Even though it really is part of life. I'm reminded of this with Win. I know it is small and trivial stuff that he does, but it is inspiring to watch him grow. His life is full of struggles and failures at the moment. He spent weeks just trying to pull himself up to a standing position. Even when he does, he still falls over sometimes. He will usually cry for a bit. But once he is better, he tries again. And again. And again until he gets it. And when he does, he is so proud. He spent weeks trying to pull himself up in his crib. When he finally could do it he was so excited it took him a few hours to finally go to sleep. We would put him on his back and he would just flip over and pull himself up and giggle with excitement that he had finally done it.
The other thing this article made me think about was what I mentioned above about how many people, including myself, would actually do what this family did. It made me think about the many immigrants and people that come to the US and what they must be going through. Granted, I have lived in another country and struggled to learn the language and assimilate myself into the culture. But that was all part of the program I signed up for. This family didn't have to do what they did. There were plenty of English-speaking international schools they could have attended.
I guess I just often look at immigrants and think that if they would just learn the language and try to be more American, then life would be easier for them. First of all, I think many are trying and it's just not easy. And second, I'm already pretty sure that if I went to Russia I wouldn't do what this family did and I would likely spend my three years there partially getting involved with the culture, but also spending a lot of time with any English speaking acquaintances I made. I'm pretty sure most Americans would do the same.
Anyways, I'm not trying to get preachy and this isn't some sort of pro-Dream Act or immigrants rights blog post or anything. I don't know if I have a specific point. Just had one of those moments where my perspective was altered a bit and I realized I can't completely fault some people for their behavior because I'm not sure I would do differently if I was in their situation. I know I, and they, would be better off if they did; as demonstrated by this article. I guess I'm still a little too proud and afraid to struggle and fail. I need to better follow Win's example.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Wilco > Black Eyed Peas
This is just fantastic:
I'm not sure why Jeff Tweedy was performing at this seemingly random venue or why he had prepared a cover of the Black Eyed Peas' "I Gotta Feeling," but it's very entertaining. Does he do this often? I'd say I should hang out in local music bars hoping to encounter a similar random performance, but as great as this performance is, I don't think it would be worth the endless hours of "emo/indie/hipster acoustical complaint rock."
You don't have to listen to I Gotta Feeling for more than about 15 seconds before you realize that lyrically and musically there is nothing brilliant about it. After hearing Jeff Tweedy slowly recite the lyrics and hearing how simple and ridiculous they are, it seems unjust that the Rebecca Black girl got creamed and ridiculed by her peers and the media for "her" song while I Gotta Feeling was performed at the Super Bowl without any sort of teenage rioting or backlash.
I'm not sure why Jeff Tweedy was performing at this seemingly random venue or why he had prepared a cover of the Black Eyed Peas' "I Gotta Feeling," but it's very entertaining. Does he do this often? I'd say I should hang out in local music bars hoping to encounter a similar random performance, but as great as this performance is, I don't think it would be worth the endless hours of "emo/indie/hipster acoustical complaint rock."
You don't have to listen to I Gotta Feeling for more than about 15 seconds before you realize that lyrically and musically there is nothing brilliant about it. After hearing Jeff Tweedy slowly recite the lyrics and hearing how simple and ridiculous they are, it seems unjust that the Rebecca Black girl got creamed and ridiculed by her peers and the media for "her" song while I Gotta Feeling was performed at the Super Bowl without any sort of teenage rioting or backlash.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Enjoyable Read
This might be the only time I will ever recommend reading a case or refer to a lawsuit as an enjoyable read because lawsuits are almost never enjoyable reads - especially summary judgment motions.
But this case is an exception. You can find it here.
It's a little long, but is highly entertaining, especially if you are into petty high school behavior, the movie Mean Girls, crazy moms living vicariously through their daughters, high school cheerleading stereotypes and/or frivolous lawsuits.
If there wasn't a case caption and cases cited throughout, I would have thought I was reading a script for a proposed Lifetime movie. Granted, I'm sure the quality minds at Lifetime are already drafting up the screenplay for this.
And speaking of citing cases, the case cited on pg. 13 - Hayut v. State University of New York - is incredible. I literally laughed out loud when I read the brief facts from that case that were cited.
Anyways, if you have some free time this is a fun read - even for a non-lawyer. Well, at least the first half is before the case gets too deep in legal analysis. Maybe it's all boring and just entertaining when compared to all other legal rulings out there. Although, I'm pretty sure the opening paragraph and footnote 13 (pg. 24) would be entertaining to most anyone.
Also, I wonder when/if this mom will ever realize she is completely whack. Surely she will appeal this ruling and try and get the Supreme Court to hear her case. But even when they throw out her case and refuse to hear it I'm sure she still won't realize she completely ridiculous and out of control. She will probably feel like there is a nationwide conspiracy to prevent her daughter from making the cheer team. Which there is of course. At least now there is.
But this case is an exception. You can find it here.
It's a little long, but is highly entertaining, especially if you are into petty high school behavior, the movie Mean Girls, crazy moms living vicariously through their daughters, high school cheerleading stereotypes and/or frivolous lawsuits.
If there wasn't a case caption and cases cited throughout, I would have thought I was reading a script for a proposed Lifetime movie. Granted, I'm sure the quality minds at Lifetime are already drafting up the screenplay for this.
And speaking of citing cases, the case cited on pg. 13 - Hayut v. State University of New York - is incredible. I literally laughed out loud when I read the brief facts from that case that were cited.
Anyways, if you have some free time this is a fun read - even for a non-lawyer. Well, at least the first half is before the case gets too deep in legal analysis. Maybe it's all boring and just entertaining when compared to all other legal rulings out there. Although, I'm pretty sure the opening paragraph and footnote 13 (pg. 24) would be entertaining to most anyone.
Also, I wonder when/if this mom will ever realize she is completely whack. Surely she will appeal this ruling and try and get the Supreme Court to hear her case. But even when they throw out her case and refuse to hear it I'm sure she still won't realize she completely ridiculous and out of control. She will probably feel like there is a nationwide conspiracy to prevent her daughter from making the cheer team. Which there is of course. At least now there is.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Audience Participation
A few years ago I went to KROQ's Inland Invasion out in lovely Devore, CA. It was one of those all day shows out in the hottest, most remote field the concert organizers could find. I think we saw 10 or 11 bands all put on an hour show each. It was the first time I ever saw Beck or Arcade Fire live. Both were fantastic and as good live as they are in a studio. The opposite of The Bravery who were also there. They only had one hit at the time, that one with the high note which unfortunately their lead singer couldn't actually hit. It was somewhat awkward and embarrassing for him. Ok, a lot embarrassing. Jet played their one song. Garbage was also there. Which made sense given that they were at least 7 years past their peak and almost completely irrelevant at the time. They would have taken the award for Most Random Band to be Playing a Show in 2005 except that Madness also performed. Yes, Madness from "Our House" fame. Garbage couldn't even take the award for Forgotten 90s Band since Live also performed.
Anyways, it was a strange lineup that ended with sets from 311, Beck, Weezer, Oasis and Cake. A quality finish. 311 was surprisingly enjoyable, Beck blew my mind and Weezer was incredibly entertaining. Oasis fell below our expectations, which is sort what we expected, and we didn't make it through all of Cake's set since people in our group were dying.
But I bring all this up because I saw a clip today from a recent U2 concert and it reminded me of something Weezer did at our show. Before they played The Sweater Song, arguably their most famous song, or at least the one that really put them on map, they asked if anyone in the audience knew the guitar part to their song. Naturally, hundreds of hands shot up. Some were probably lying, but most people that raised their hands were likely males that spent the bulk of their teenage years in the 90s and spent countless hours lounging around either alone or with friends and while staring blankly at a wall or TV and plucked out the opening notes to the Sweater Song, and thus likely did know how to play the song.
So Weezer brings up some guy from the audience and they give him a guitar and he starts plucking away and they sing the song. It was wildly entertaining. After wards they gave him the guitar and sent him backstage. I still remember it to this day as one of my favorite concert moments. I was trying to figure out why I like it so much since I like Weezer but don't necessarily love Weezer. But I think I think I enjoyed it for a lot of the same reasons why I love this clip so much: It bridges the gap between the band and the audience. There is something about a member of the audience playing with the band that humanizes the band and brings them to the audience level even though they aren't. Especially not U2. I don't know their complete background, but their current life situation is vastly different than mine. So is Weezers.
But as much as you may feel connected to a band through their music, this for some reason puts it on a different level. If you are watching it you almost feel like you are up there playing with them. Not really of course, but it does bring you on to the same plane as the band.
I also think it's great because I don't think that all bands could do this. I love Muse and they put on a fantastic show, but I don't think something like this would work for them. They have too much of a production and spectacle. It's almost too polished and professional and an amateur would just ruin things. Most bands couldn't do this without ruining their show.
It also helps with bands like U2 and Weezer that have not only been around for so long, but they have so many songs that people are very familiar with where they could do this. Not many bands have songs where many people in audience could play the guitar part. People might know the songs and some die-hards might be able to play the songs, but it wouldn't be as universal as a U2 song. Even someone like Beck, everyone knows the song Loser, but few could actually play it. Can you imagine Beck saying, "Anyone out there a slide guitarist that can come up here and play Loser for us?" Or Arcade Fire saying, "Hey, we want to play Keep the Car Running, any hurdy gurdy players in the audience?... No? Ok, nevermind." Just wouldn't work.
Maybe I'm over-analyzing this. Maybe U2 and Weezer are on the same plane as most fans and they are somewhat "normal people" so they can get away with things like this. Maybe it just comes down to confidence and U2 and Weezer have been doing this so long and mastered their craft so well that they know that no amateur could really ruin their show or set because they can make up for any shortcomings. Maybe the person's guitar is actually unplugged and The Edge is backstage playing and this is all just a hoax.
Or maybe it is all real and there is no need to try and dissect it because awesome doesn't need an explanation.
Also, apparently the guy in this video is blind. Now it has to be staged.
Anyways, it was a strange lineup that ended with sets from 311, Beck, Weezer, Oasis and Cake. A quality finish. 311 was surprisingly enjoyable, Beck blew my mind and Weezer was incredibly entertaining. Oasis fell below our expectations, which is sort what we expected, and we didn't make it through all of Cake's set since people in our group were dying.
But I bring all this up because I saw a clip today from a recent U2 concert and it reminded me of something Weezer did at our show. Before they played The Sweater Song, arguably their most famous song, or at least the one that really put them on map, they asked if anyone in the audience knew the guitar part to their song. Naturally, hundreds of hands shot up. Some were probably lying, but most people that raised their hands were likely males that spent the bulk of their teenage years in the 90s and spent countless hours lounging around either alone or with friends and while staring blankly at a wall or TV and plucked out the opening notes to the Sweater Song, and thus likely did know how to play the song.
So Weezer brings up some guy from the audience and they give him a guitar and he starts plucking away and they sing the song. It was wildly entertaining. After wards they gave him the guitar and sent him backstage. I still remember it to this day as one of my favorite concert moments. I was trying to figure out why I like it so much since I like Weezer but don't necessarily love Weezer. But I think I think I enjoyed it for a lot of the same reasons why I love this clip so much: It bridges the gap between the band and the audience. There is something about a member of the audience playing with the band that humanizes the band and brings them to the audience level even though they aren't. Especially not U2. I don't know their complete background, but their current life situation is vastly different than mine. So is Weezers.
But as much as you may feel connected to a band through their music, this for some reason puts it on a different level. If you are watching it you almost feel like you are up there playing with them. Not really of course, but it does bring you on to the same plane as the band.
I also think it's great because I don't think that all bands could do this. I love Muse and they put on a fantastic show, but I don't think something like this would work for them. They have too much of a production and spectacle. It's almost too polished and professional and an amateur would just ruin things. Most bands couldn't do this without ruining their show.
It also helps with bands like U2 and Weezer that have not only been around for so long, but they have so many songs that people are very familiar with where they could do this. Not many bands have songs where many people in audience could play the guitar part. People might know the songs and some die-hards might be able to play the songs, but it wouldn't be as universal as a U2 song. Even someone like Beck, everyone knows the song Loser, but few could actually play it. Can you imagine Beck saying, "Anyone out there a slide guitarist that can come up here and play Loser for us?" Or Arcade Fire saying, "Hey, we want to play Keep the Car Running, any hurdy gurdy players in the audience?... No? Ok, nevermind." Just wouldn't work.
Maybe I'm over-analyzing this. Maybe U2 and Weezer are on the same plane as most fans and they are somewhat "normal people" so they can get away with things like this. Maybe it just comes down to confidence and U2 and Weezer have been doing this so long and mastered their craft so well that they know that no amateur could really ruin their show or set because they can make up for any shortcomings. Maybe the person's guitar is actually unplugged and The Edge is backstage playing and this is all just a hoax.
Or maybe it is all real and there is no need to try and dissect it because awesome doesn't need an explanation.
Also, apparently the guy in this video is blind. Now it has to be staged.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Summer Movies
Nellie has been requesting a summer movie post. Once upon a time this was an annual event here at Kent Drive. I missed last year and it seemed like the tradition may have died. But like this blog in general, we just aren't ready to kill if off entirely.
So when it comes to movies, summer now starts in April, which is why I'm a little late with this post. Two summer blockbusters have already come out: Fast Five and Thor. I have done my American duty and seen both of them. Fast Five was terrific. Just horribly awesome at so many moments. Lots of ridiculous stunts. A mediocre plot line that felt a lot like Oceans 11. And the greatest ensemble of bad actors ever in a movie. Just fantastically bad. Bill Simmons and Adam Corolla did a podcast breaking down the movie. If you have an hour to kill or need some comedy in your life, give it a listen. I think my favorite line might be Adam Corolla describing Vin Diesel as "Sylvester Stallone if Stallone had been hit over the head with a snow shovel." So spot on. He's Sly Stallone, only a little slower and dumber, if that is possible.
The podcast is here if you want to listen. It's the 4/28 podcast. Speaking of podcasts...
Thor was also good summer fun. Not exactly life changing or anything. But an entertaining shut off your brain summer movie. Had some plot questions and left a little to be desired in some spots. But had decent character development and a good story line.
Anyways, it seems like everything this summer is either a sequel or an action hero/Marvel movie, or both. Here is an interesting article from GQ about why that is. Sort of a sad story for movies in general. Don't get me wrong, summer movies are fun, but there really isn't much creativity or new ideas in the summer movies.
Not really sure how to organize this, so we'll just count them down in order of likelihood I'll be seeing it.
So here we go:
Zookeeper
Sadly, there is actually a decent chance I will see this movie, just not in the theater. When you have 40+ nieces and nephews, movies like this get screened at family gatherings because it fits under the guise of "family fun for all ages." But that's a lie. No respectable family should and does have fun watching this movie, regardless of age. I just showed this trailer to Win and he started crying.
Planet of the Apes
I don't know. Sort of looks good. But also just can't get myself excited to see this. It's a mob movie for me. If I'm swept up in a mob of people wanting to go see it then I'll go, but I definitely won't be instigating that mob.
Pirates 4: Something Something Johnny Depp
This one actually looks decent. The problem is that the previous two were so long and such abominations that I have zero desire to pay money to see this. They were able to make a great movie out of a theme park attraction, then milked it for all they could by giving us 6 hours of roaming and bumbling nothingness.
I think the script looked something like this:
Roam around and pretend like we are after something.
Johnny Deep funny talking.
Action running around with Orlando Bloom. Use swords.
Keira Knightly. Use snaggletooth.
Repeat 5x.
Resolve all "plot lines" by good guys getting the thing they needed but not that other thing they will need in next installment.
And now they think they can redeem themselves by making a quality film and pretend like 2 and 3 never happened and charge us $17 in the meantime? I don't know if that is their actual plan but I'm going to assume it is and I won't stand for it.
Speaking of terrible sequels:
Transformers 3: Dark (Side) of the Moon
Yea for disaster porn. I hope that Pink Floyd is somehow suing Michael Bay and the entire Tranformers Movie Organization (TMO) for that title.
Admittedly, like Pirates, this one does look better than the previous ones. But if the incessant pounding noise (ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-bum!) in the preview is any foreshadowing of the in your face unnecessarily loud sounds and images that are bound to dominate the movie, then I think I'll pass.
Harry Potter
Just because this movie follows the previous two, doesn't mean I view it the same. I just don't do Harry Potter. I'm not anti Potter, I just never read the series. I read book one and enjoyed it, just didn't continue with the rest of them. No good reason. Just life and ESPN I guess. I've seen parts of other movies and I was just lost. I didn't see the first half of this one, not sure why I would pay $14 to see the second half. I'm sure it will be good and will literally make a billion dollars. Hopefully in 30 years when they are making the movies again I'll have read the books by then and I can see the second installment.
Winnie the Pooh
When literally the world is seeing Harry Potter on opening weekend, this is where that one other person that didn't read Harry Potter and I will be:
Yes please. Lie to me and tell me you didn't smile and laugh at least 4 or 5 times during that trailer. If that doesn't make you feel happy, I don't know what could.
As I typed that Nellie just said she didn't really like Winnie the Pooh growing up. This is troubling and information I wish I knew prior to making eternal commitments with her. You know what Nellie does love? Target. Actual quote from last week as we walked in the store:
"Target is so great. I just love it. Guys don't love this place as much as women do, huh?"
Me: No response. Just mentally bracing myself for the dent this trip was going to make in our bank account.
I don't know if Target pumps Brad Pitt's musk through their vents or what sort of mind games they pull on women, but they have them locked down.
Cars 2
Ugh Pixar. I sort of hate you for making this movie. I actually don't hate you. I really like you. But I was genuinely bored in Cars and I have little desire to see a sequel. It's just that, after what you pulled in Up and Toy Story 3, I can't help but want to support you with everything you do. I just hope this isn't as boring as the first one. Not that it really matters though. I'll still see it and show up next summer for whatever it is that you will be rolling out.
The Tree of Life
This film was screened last night at Cannes to mixed/poor reviews. I'm still excited to see it. Terrence Malick movies are long and can be slow, but only if you don't know what to expect. Not that I know exactly what to expect with this movie, but it's likely going to be a lot of just dialogue and pondering issues. Which can be good in some moments. Not exactly an ideal summer movie though.
Captain America
Eh. Ok. A buff man with a pistol and no apparent superpowers is coming to fight the Nazis. Not terribly impressed. At least give him a shotgun or a chainsaw as an arm or something. Nope. He's got six bullets and a hubcap. Better use them wisely. I'm gonna bet there are a few times throughout the movie where he uses at least 14-15 rounds before reloading.
X Men
What they never show in the X-Men movies is the X-man or woman that has the advanced brain. They always have planes that are centuries ahead of every one else. Presumably this movie takes place in the 50's with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The X-Men come cruising along to prevent the crisis and they show up in some incredibly advanced plane. It was the same way in the previous movies. The X-Men aren't just freaks of nature, but they are apparently also freaky smart when it comes to building planes. Unfortunately, it seems as though their technology advancements only apply to flying crafts. Can't they apply their superior brain power to other areas? Maybe just invent superior weapons. Might be easier than trying to stop a bunch of rockets with the strong magnet in your hand. Also might get the US government to respect you more.
Larry Crowne
Need to break up all the superhero stuff. How about with some Tom Hanks? Sure, he's usually a good relief. Doesn't necessarily look like the best Tom Hanks movie and hopefully it's not as predictable as the trailer implies. But I'm pretty sure there are worse chick-flicks to have to go to.
Green Lantern
So I wasn't all interested in this movie until I saw the extended trailer from above. Now I'm totally on board. Granted, I sort of have a thing for Ryan Reynolds. I know he annoys a lot of people, but I usually find him pretty entertaining. One of those people that generally plays the same-ish character in each movie. I tend to like his one character, so I'm usually on board.
Super 8
The coach from Friday Night Lights meets Unstoppable with the alternate train crash ending meets Independence Day or maybe even Signs. Aliens are synonymous with summer. This one looks like it will be quality and at least worth the price of admission. I'll grace it with my presence. I know Spielberg will appreciate it.
Cowboys and Aliens
Still not sure what is going on here. We know it's a western and presumably set in that time period. Aliens also seem to attack. And some naked girl keeps on showing up. Not sure if she is an alien or a confused citizen that often forgets her clothes.
Regardless, I like the idea, and the actors. You can't beat James Bond. It's about time he started fighting aliens and not just the Russians in every movie. Plus, it puts Harrison Ford back on a horse, which is really where he belongs. He wasn't on a horse much in the last Indiana Jones movie and you saw how that turned out. Hopefully being on a horse will make this alien encounter bearable. It's directed by Jon Favereau. He did the Iron Man movies, so I feel like this has to be good.
At the same time, it also seems like it has the potential to be sort of lame. Sort of a gamble for the top of this list. But with so few gambles this summer and everyone going for the sure thing and safe bet, I feel like a movie that gambled should be awarded the top spot on this illustrious list. Hopefully it turns out to be a big winner.
So when it comes to movies, summer now starts in April, which is why I'm a little late with this post. Two summer blockbusters have already come out: Fast Five and Thor. I have done my American duty and seen both of them. Fast Five was terrific. Just horribly awesome at so many moments. Lots of ridiculous stunts. A mediocre plot line that felt a lot like Oceans 11. And the greatest ensemble of bad actors ever in a movie. Just fantastically bad. Bill Simmons and Adam Corolla did a podcast breaking down the movie. If you have an hour to kill or need some comedy in your life, give it a listen. I think my favorite line might be Adam Corolla describing Vin Diesel as "Sylvester Stallone if Stallone had been hit over the head with a snow shovel." So spot on. He's Sly Stallone, only a little slower and dumber, if that is possible.
The podcast is here if you want to listen. It's the 4/28 podcast. Speaking of podcasts...
Thor was also good summer fun. Not exactly life changing or anything. But an entertaining shut off your brain summer movie. Had some plot questions and left a little to be desired in some spots. But had decent character development and a good story line.
Anyways, it seems like everything this summer is either a sequel or an action hero/Marvel movie, or both. Here is an interesting article from GQ about why that is. Sort of a sad story for movies in general. Don't get me wrong, summer movies are fun, but there really isn't much creativity or new ideas in the summer movies.
Not really sure how to organize this, so we'll just count them down in order of likelihood I'll be seeing it.
So here we go:
Zookeeper
Sadly, there is actually a decent chance I will see this movie, just not in the theater. When you have 40+ nieces and nephews, movies like this get screened at family gatherings because it fits under the guise of "family fun for all ages." But that's a lie. No respectable family should and does have fun watching this movie, regardless of age. I just showed this trailer to Win and he started crying.
Planet of the Apes
I don't know. Sort of looks good. But also just can't get myself excited to see this. It's a mob movie for me. If I'm swept up in a mob of people wanting to go see it then I'll go, but I definitely won't be instigating that mob.
Pirates 4: Something Something Johnny Depp
This one actually looks decent. The problem is that the previous two were so long and such abominations that I have zero desire to pay money to see this. They were able to make a great movie out of a theme park attraction, then milked it for all they could by giving us 6 hours of roaming and bumbling nothingness.
I think the script looked something like this:
Roam around and pretend like we are after something.
Johnny Deep funny talking.
Action running around with Orlando Bloom. Use swords.
Keira Knightly. Use snaggletooth.
Repeat 5x.
Resolve all "plot lines" by good guys getting the thing they needed but not that other thing they will need in next installment.
And now they think they can redeem themselves by making a quality film and pretend like 2 and 3 never happened and charge us $17 in the meantime? I don't know if that is their actual plan but I'm going to assume it is and I won't stand for it.
Speaking of terrible sequels:
Transformers 3: Dark (Side) of the Moon
Yea for disaster porn. I hope that Pink Floyd is somehow suing Michael Bay and the entire Tranformers Movie Organization (TMO) for that title.
Admittedly, like Pirates, this one does look better than the previous ones. But if the incessant pounding noise (ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-bum!) in the preview is any foreshadowing of the in your face unnecessarily loud sounds and images that are bound to dominate the movie, then I think I'll pass.
Harry Potter
Just because this movie follows the previous two, doesn't mean I view it the same. I just don't do Harry Potter. I'm not anti Potter, I just never read the series. I read book one and enjoyed it, just didn't continue with the rest of them. No good reason. Just life and ESPN I guess. I've seen parts of other movies and I was just lost. I didn't see the first half of this one, not sure why I would pay $14 to see the second half. I'm sure it will be good and will literally make a billion dollars. Hopefully in 30 years when they are making the movies again I'll have read the books by then and I can see the second installment.
Winnie the Pooh
When literally the world is seeing Harry Potter on opening weekend, this is where that one other person that didn't read Harry Potter and I will be:
Yes please. Lie to me and tell me you didn't smile and laugh at least 4 or 5 times during that trailer. If that doesn't make you feel happy, I don't know what could.
As I typed that Nellie just said she didn't really like Winnie the Pooh growing up. This is troubling and information I wish I knew prior to making eternal commitments with her. You know what Nellie does love? Target. Actual quote from last week as we walked in the store:
"Target is so great. I just love it. Guys don't love this place as much as women do, huh?"
Me: No response. Just mentally bracing myself for the dent this trip was going to make in our bank account.
I don't know if Target pumps Brad Pitt's musk through their vents or what sort of mind games they pull on women, but they have them locked down.
Cars 2
Ugh Pixar. I sort of hate you for making this movie. I actually don't hate you. I really like you. But I was genuinely bored in Cars and I have little desire to see a sequel. It's just that, after what you pulled in Up and Toy Story 3, I can't help but want to support you with everything you do. I just hope this isn't as boring as the first one. Not that it really matters though. I'll still see it and show up next summer for whatever it is that you will be rolling out.
The Tree of Life
This film was screened last night at Cannes to mixed/poor reviews. I'm still excited to see it. Terrence Malick movies are long and can be slow, but only if you don't know what to expect. Not that I know exactly what to expect with this movie, but it's likely going to be a lot of just dialogue and pondering issues. Which can be good in some moments. Not exactly an ideal summer movie though.
Captain America
Eh. Ok. A buff man with a pistol and no apparent superpowers is coming to fight the Nazis. Not terribly impressed. At least give him a shotgun or a chainsaw as an arm or something. Nope. He's got six bullets and a hubcap. Better use them wisely. I'm gonna bet there are a few times throughout the movie where he uses at least 14-15 rounds before reloading.
X Men
What they never show in the X-Men movies is the X-man or woman that has the advanced brain. They always have planes that are centuries ahead of every one else. Presumably this movie takes place in the 50's with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The X-Men come cruising along to prevent the crisis and they show up in some incredibly advanced plane. It was the same way in the previous movies. The X-Men aren't just freaks of nature, but they are apparently also freaky smart when it comes to building planes. Unfortunately, it seems as though their technology advancements only apply to flying crafts. Can't they apply their superior brain power to other areas? Maybe just invent superior weapons. Might be easier than trying to stop a bunch of rockets with the strong magnet in your hand. Also might get the US government to respect you more.
Larry Crowne
Need to break up all the superhero stuff. How about with some Tom Hanks? Sure, he's usually a good relief. Doesn't necessarily look like the best Tom Hanks movie and hopefully it's not as predictable as the trailer implies. But I'm pretty sure there are worse chick-flicks to have to go to.
Green Lantern
So I wasn't all interested in this movie until I saw the extended trailer from above. Now I'm totally on board. Granted, I sort of have a thing for Ryan Reynolds. I know he annoys a lot of people, but I usually find him pretty entertaining. One of those people that generally plays the same-ish character in each movie. I tend to like his one character, so I'm usually on board.
Super 8
The coach from Friday Night Lights meets Unstoppable with the alternate train crash ending meets Independence Day or maybe even Signs. Aliens are synonymous with summer. This one looks like it will be quality and at least worth the price of admission. I'll grace it with my presence. I know Spielberg will appreciate it.
Cowboys and Aliens
Still not sure what is going on here. We know it's a western and presumably set in that time period. Aliens also seem to attack. And some naked girl keeps on showing up. Not sure if she is an alien or a confused citizen that often forgets her clothes.
Regardless, I like the idea, and the actors. You can't beat James Bond. It's about time he started fighting aliens and not just the Russians in every movie. Plus, it puts Harrison Ford back on a horse, which is really where he belongs. He wasn't on a horse much in the last Indiana Jones movie and you saw how that turned out. Hopefully being on a horse will make this alien encounter bearable. It's directed by Jon Favereau. He did the Iron Man movies, so I feel like this has to be good.
At the same time, it also seems like it has the potential to be sort of lame. Sort of a gamble for the top of this list. But with so few gambles this summer and everyone going for the sure thing and safe bet, I feel like a movie that gambled should be awarded the top spot on this illustrious list. Hopefully it turns out to be a big winner.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The Hobbit
This is awesome. Watching this made me happy. Not in a giddy sort of way. More of a nostalgic happy. Happy that these people are allowing me to return to a place full of great memories. Just hearing the music reminded me of how great the LOTR movies were. It's amazing how much work goes into these movies. I'm excited to return to the Shire in a couple years.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Doogie Howser
I have lots of things I have been wanting to post about lately. I'm still working on my Radiohead review for Josh.
But I came across this article on Yahoo today and I love everything about it.
Total real life Doogie Howser, only physics style. Kid starts solving puzzles by age three. Learns algebra, geometry and calculus in two weeks. Graduates high school by the age of 8. He is breezing through college and by age 12 he is questioning Enstein's theories. The physicist Enstein, not the bagel one.
Here is the video from the article:
Awesome. Such cool stuff.
And of course, here is the original Doogie. Love that blue screen computer and sweet intro music.
But I came across this article on Yahoo today and I love everything about it.
Total real life Doogie Howser, only physics style. Kid starts solving puzzles by age three. Learns algebra, geometry and calculus in two weeks. Graduates high school by the age of 8. He is breezing through college and by age 12 he is questioning Enstein's theories. The physicist Enstein, not the bagel one.
Here is the video from the article:
Awesome. Such cool stuff.
And of course, here is the original Doogie. Love that blue screen computer and sweet intro music.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Pixar
I came across this video the other day of a tour of Pixar's studios. It's pretty awesome. They have as incredible of a workplace as I would expect from a masterful movie company.
A few things I enjoyed about it:
1. I love how they try to recreate the experience in person before they try to do it animated. Like bringing in actual dancers in order to study how they move or how they constructed a garbage bin and made the animators climb through it so that they could know what it felt like. Which is brilliant because when they created that scene they were no longer guessing what it would be like but actually recreating their own experience.
2. The attention to detail is mind blowing. I shouldn't be too surprised since they are incredibly thorough and never miss a minor detail. But it was still remarkable to see all the little things they insist on doing which surely improve the overall quality.
3. Finally, the workplace. Is there a cooler place to work? That building is fantastic. The setup is genius with the massive communal area. I think I'm just most impressed by how it caters so much to the employee and fostering a workplace and a community where the ideas can thrive and the employee can really excel.
I love the comment made about how people see the workplace and think that employees might have a hard time staying on task. But they actually have the opposite problem of employees working too much. It's almost the complete opposite of your standard business model or standard workplace. Normally bosses do have to act like parents and make sure employees are always on task, which usually creates a stressful and not very pleasant workplace.
Pixar is debunking the standard workplace model mindset and has managed to create an ideal work environment where their employees enjoy working. Granted, I think the reason they are able to do so is because of their product. It's an extremely high quality product and one which most people could easily support. When you have a quality product, you don't really have to convince your employees that they are doing worthwhile work and that they should enjoy what they are doing. If the product is quality, the employee will want to contribute to it, and if the employee wants to do something, they will "work" harder because it doesn't really come across as work.
One last thing, I think many companies have quality products and have a great work environment, but it's impressive that Pixar is able to do it on such a large scale. I think lots of small start-up companies are able to do what Pixar has done and have a non-traditional work place, but it seems like as companies grow, they eventually go more towards the corporate model and traditional workplace.
Pixar has grown from 30 to 1200 employees yet it still comes across as a small tight-knit unit with only 10 employees where everyone is happy. Granted, I'm basing this entire opinion and observation off their movies and a 5 minute video. But I don't know how one wouldn't like that workplace and I'm pretty sure that getting a job at Pixar is probably pretty difficult, so the observation can't be too far off.
A few things I enjoyed about it:
1. I love how they try to recreate the experience in person before they try to do it animated. Like bringing in actual dancers in order to study how they move or how they constructed a garbage bin and made the animators climb through it so that they could know what it felt like. Which is brilliant because when they created that scene they were no longer guessing what it would be like but actually recreating their own experience.
2. The attention to detail is mind blowing. I shouldn't be too surprised since they are incredibly thorough and never miss a minor detail. But it was still remarkable to see all the little things they insist on doing which surely improve the overall quality.
3. Finally, the workplace. Is there a cooler place to work? That building is fantastic. The setup is genius with the massive communal area. I think I'm just most impressed by how it caters so much to the employee and fostering a workplace and a community where the ideas can thrive and the employee can really excel.
I love the comment made about how people see the workplace and think that employees might have a hard time staying on task. But they actually have the opposite problem of employees working too much. It's almost the complete opposite of your standard business model or standard workplace. Normally bosses do have to act like parents and make sure employees are always on task, which usually creates a stressful and not very pleasant workplace.
Pixar is debunking the standard workplace model mindset and has managed to create an ideal work environment where their employees enjoy working. Granted, I think the reason they are able to do so is because of their product. It's an extremely high quality product and one which most people could easily support. When you have a quality product, you don't really have to convince your employees that they are doing worthwhile work and that they should enjoy what they are doing. If the product is quality, the employee will want to contribute to it, and if the employee wants to do something, they will "work" harder because it doesn't really come across as work.
One last thing, I think many companies have quality products and have a great work environment, but it's impressive that Pixar is able to do it on such a large scale. I think lots of small start-up companies are able to do what Pixar has done and have a non-traditional work place, but it seems like as companies grow, they eventually go more towards the corporate model and traditional workplace.
Pixar has grown from 30 to 1200 employees yet it still comes across as a small tight-knit unit with only 10 employees where everyone is happy. Granted, I'm basing this entire opinion and observation off their movies and a 5 minute video. But I don't know how one wouldn't like that workplace and I'm pretty sure that getting a job at Pixar is probably pretty difficult, so the observation can't be too far off.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Musical Win
Winston is here. I'm already dreaming of him as a world class athlete or scholar. Yet, I'm also thinking that he may be destined for music because of the early music connections.
Although his name is Winston, we mostly call him Win. While he was in the womb, Nellie and I went to an Arcade Fire concert. He wasn't named after Win Butler - the lead singer of Arcade Fire - but I will neither confirm nor deny if he lept in the womb when Win Butler took the stage at the start of the concert. It did also happen to be the only concert we went to while she was pregnant.
Beck was also in the running for his name. In the end, I think it's better we went with Win and Arcade Fire. Beck is awesome and has incredible music, but if we named him Beck I would have felt compelled to play Beck songs for him as often as possible. That would be great once he was a little older and I could play any song in the Beck music library; but while he is young I would have wanted to play softer and mellower songs for him. Which pretty much leaves Sea Change as my only option. Sure, it's a great album, but he probably would have grown up extremely depressed and completely sour and pessimistic about love.
Not to say there isn't anything by Beck to play for him. I already played Sunday Morning for him the other day. One of these days I'll learn more lullabys so I can be the one to sing to him. In the meantime, this is as good as any and seemed to keep him happy.
One last musical note (pun intended), I realized just the other day that he was born at 12:51 p.m. I can't believe I didn't make the Strokes connection sooner. He could have come sooner or hung out in the hot tub a little longer before making his appearance. But he knew his daddy was a Strokes fan and would appreciate the 12:51 arrival. It's especially symbolic considering the Strokes recently announced their 2011 concert tour, their first tour since 2006, and also the year of Win's birth. No doubt our first father/son outing will be to their show.
I'm sure there are many more musical connections. I'll keep you updated as they are revealed.
Although his name is Winston, we mostly call him Win. While he was in the womb, Nellie and I went to an Arcade Fire concert. He wasn't named after Win Butler - the lead singer of Arcade Fire - but I will neither confirm nor deny if he lept in the womb when Win Butler took the stage at the start of the concert. It did also happen to be the only concert we went to while she was pregnant.
Beck was also in the running for his name. In the end, I think it's better we went with Win and Arcade Fire. Beck is awesome and has incredible music, but if we named him Beck I would have felt compelled to play Beck songs for him as often as possible. That would be great once he was a little older and I could play any song in the Beck music library; but while he is young I would have wanted to play softer and mellower songs for him. Which pretty much leaves Sea Change as my only option. Sure, it's a great album, but he probably would have grown up extremely depressed and completely sour and pessimistic about love.
Not to say there isn't anything by Beck to play for him. I already played Sunday Morning for him the other day. One of these days I'll learn more lullabys so I can be the one to sing to him. In the meantime, this is as good as any and seemed to keep him happy.
One last musical note (pun intended), I realized just the other day that he was born at 12:51 p.m. I can't believe I didn't make the Strokes connection sooner. He could have come sooner or hung out in the hot tub a little longer before making his appearance. But he knew his daddy was a Strokes fan and would appreciate the 12:51 arrival. It's especially symbolic considering the Strokes recently announced their 2011 concert tour, their first tour since 2006, and also the year of Win's birth. No doubt our first father/son outing will be to their show.
I'm sure there are many more musical connections. I'll keep you updated as they are revealed.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Do you Moosico?
Moosico is my friend Dave's music blog. It's pretty great. Sadly, I don't frequent it as much as I should. Dave listens to a ton of music and sorts through all the junk out there to give you the good stuff. Granted, you might consider some of his good stuff junk, but most of it is great.
He recently put together a top 20 songs of 2010. It's a great list. In particular is the song Simple Graces by Delorean. Apparently they are a Basque group. Who doesn't love the Basque? No one. Everyone is a fan of the Basque. Such nice people. We should all move to Bilbao.
Anyways, this Delorean song is just great. I can't get it out of my head. So fun, so smooth and so Friday.
Enjoy and be sure to thank Dave.
He recently put together a top 20 songs of 2010. It's a great list. In particular is the song Simple Graces by Delorean. Apparently they are a Basque group. Who doesn't love the Basque? No one. Everyone is a fan of the Basque. Such nice people. We should all move to Bilbao.
Anyways, this Delorean song is just great. I can't get it out of my head. So fun, so smooth and so Friday.
Enjoy and be sure to thank Dave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
