Scorpion is not a completely terrible show. But it seems that every time I watch it, I come away with at least two nits. The Season 2 finale, "Toby or Not Toby" (groan right off the bat), was no exception. An unstable former Scorpion team member, Mark Collins (Joshua Leonard), escapes the psych ward and predictably wants revenge.
Collins kidnaps Toby (Eddie Kaye Thomas) and traps him in a web of dental floss with a jar of acid just about to fall straight into his mouth. In order to rescue Toby, the rest of the team must piece the clues to together to figure out where Collins is holding Toby. Doing that involves Walter (Elyes Gabel) climbing a cellphone tower with a keytar in order to allow Sylvester (Ari Stidham) to narrow down Toby's location. Sure, I'll suspend my disbelief for now.
To be fair, it was a vicarious adrenaline rush to watch this life-or-death scenario in which the slightest mistake could cost Toby his life. When the team arrives and finds Toby captive in the floss web, they figure out something about tension and musical pitch to determine which strings of floss they can safely cut. The more you think about this particular plot point, the less sense it makes.
Supposedly the string with the highest pitch is the one that would drop the acid if cut. Okay, I'll buy that, at least I bought it as I was watching. So they pluck some strings and a lot of them have the same pitch. Here I had a problem. They don't all seem to be the same length, so how can they have the same pitch? Also, with this question it makes me wonder what exactly is providing the resonance for these strings to produce such clear tones.
Just in the nick of time, Happy (Jadyn Wong) makes it into the web and pushes Toby out of the way right before the acid drops. Apparently, Toby was about to propose to Happy before he was kidnapped, but Happy doesn't seem all that happy at the prospect.
Safely back at the Scorpion lair, Toby tells Happy that he will not say a question to her, that he'll sing it. Toby does sing a song, but after the song, he still says the question: "Will you marry me?" This is a nit because in this show almost every major character tries to be insufferably literal and precise in what they say.
Happy declines Toby's marriage proposal, and I guess maybe the show's fans will be on pins and needles over the summer as they wait to find out why; I sure won't, I probably won't even remember and I make no promises as to whether or not I'll watch the Season 3 premiere. There's also relationship drama for Walter and Paige (Katharine McPhee).
I guess I would have been okay with seeing Toby rescued with only three or four minutes left in the episode, instead of almost twenty, leaving little time for the shipper stuff. With Toby safe, the episode went from exciting to boring almost immediately. As Collins is hauled away, he seems less interested in revenge and more interested in making some dumb point about self-sufficiency (yawn).
I also found the talk of the consciousness transfer research and mind reading capabilities a little implausible, but the episode zipped along fast enough not to bother me too much with that.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Everything Sheldon's ever owned? I think not
Why am I still watching The Big Bang Theory!? It's a terrible show. Sheldon is even more obnoxious, and Raj is starting to really get on my nerves.
For a man with an eidetic memory, Sheldon (Jim Parsons) seems to forget a lot of things. In tonight's episode, "The Solder Excursion Diversion," Sheldon takes his girlfriend Amy (Mayim Bialik) to his "Fortress of Shame," a storage unit where he supposedly keeps all his material possessions that he no longer uses.
Supposedly Amy is now the only other person who knows about this storage unit, which is strange, considering that Amy had to drive him there and the storage unit supposedly contains items that predate Amy, when Leonard had to drive Sheldon around everywhere. This can be explained away, I suppose. Maybe the honest-to-a-fault Sheldon realized that Amy would appreciate the lie of his sharing this secret shame only with her.
But this other nit is a little more difficult to explain: remember the Season 3 episode in which thieves broke into the apartment Sheldon shares with Leonard and stole their "TV, two laptops, four external hard-drives, our PS2, our PS3, our X-Box, our X-Box 360, our classic Nintendo, our Super Nintendo, our Nintendo 64 and our Wii." They buy new things, and presumably the police doesn't recover any of what was stolen.
How do the things Sheldon shares with Leonard figure into the storage unit? Plus the golf ball Sheldon's brother threw at him when they were kids, how does that become one of Sheldon's possessions? And such a prized possession that he still can't bear to throw it away.
And the opening bit about Sheldon letting his computer deteriorate so much... yawn. I need to stop watching this show, it's terrible.
For a man with an eidetic memory, Sheldon (Jim Parsons) seems to forget a lot of things. In tonight's episode, "The Solder Excursion Diversion," Sheldon takes his girlfriend Amy (Mayim Bialik) to his "Fortress of Shame," a storage unit where he supposedly keeps all his material possessions that he no longer uses.
Supposedly Amy is now the only other person who knows about this storage unit, which is strange, considering that Amy had to drive him there and the storage unit supposedly contains items that predate Amy, when Leonard had to drive Sheldon around everywhere. This can be explained away, I suppose. Maybe the honest-to-a-fault Sheldon realized that Amy would appreciate the lie of his sharing this secret shame only with her.
But this other nit is a little more difficult to explain: remember the Season 3 episode in which thieves broke into the apartment Sheldon shares with Leonard and stole their "TV, two laptops, four external hard-drives, our PS2, our PS3, our X-Box, our X-Box 360, our classic Nintendo, our Super Nintendo, our Nintendo 64 and our Wii." They buy new things, and presumably the police doesn't recover any of what was stolen.
How do the things Sheldon shares with Leonard figure into the storage unit? Plus the golf ball Sheldon's brother threw at him when they were kids, how does that become one of Sheldon's possessions? And such a prized possession that he still can't bear to throw it away.
And the opening bit about Sheldon letting his computer deteriorate so much... yawn. I need to stop watching this show, it's terrible.
Friday, January 8, 2016
George III's planet
The Big Bang Theory is still on and I'm still watching it. It's a terrible show for so many reasons that I won't go in-depth about here. According to a writer for Looper, "the scientific jokes rely on the audience's lack of understanding of the principles behind them." Well, sometimes this show fails on some fairly basic knowledge of science history.
Last night's episode, "The Sales Call Sublimation," gives a perfect example of that. The side story concerns Sheldon and Raj discovering an asteroid and getting to name it. It's a decision they will not take lightly, because Sheldon says that "Sir William Herschel didn't do Uranus any favors." Um, that doesn't sound exactly right.
It is true that William Herschel discovered that planet orbiting farther away than Saturn in 1781. But he named it "Georgium Sidus" in honor of King George III. If there was any doubt that Herschel should be knighted and named Astronomer Royal, that naming choice surely clinched it.
Of course if you know just a tiny bit about 18th century politics, you realize that that name didn't go over that well outside of England. Plus it didn't help that Herschel thought he discovered a comet. The German astronomer Elert Bode was among the first to realize that Herschel had in fact discovered a planet.
Arguing that there should be consistency with the names of the previously discovered planets, Bode eventually convinced the world to call it Uranus. Bode of course wasn't thinking about the potty humor of lazy sitcom writers, and I doubt he'd care if they had chosen to blame him instead of Herschel for that planet's supposedly poor name choice.
Wikipedia shouldn't be anyone's go-to source for anything, but if the writers had bothered to at least skim the Wikipedia article, they would have noticed a section titled "Naming." Maybe they would have had the bad luck to check Wikipedia at a time that particular article was vandalized. Which is unlikely, as Wikipedia's articles on the planets are maintained with almost as much care as the Big Bang articles.
Lastly, a very minor nit: Raj and Sheldon agree to call the asteroid "Amy," after Sheldon's girlfriend Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler (Mayim Bialik). Seems kind of short to be the name of an object there are thousands of in our solar system. Though I don't know how long it would take for the International Astronomical Union to sign off on "00327 Amy" or whatever the final name wound up being.
Last night's episode, "The Sales Call Sublimation," gives a perfect example of that. The side story concerns Sheldon and Raj discovering an asteroid and getting to name it. It's a decision they will not take lightly, because Sheldon says that "Sir William Herschel didn't do Uranus any favors." Um, that doesn't sound exactly right.
It is true that William Herschel discovered that planet orbiting farther away than Saturn in 1781. But he named it "Georgium Sidus" in honor of King George III. If there was any doubt that Herschel should be knighted and named Astronomer Royal, that naming choice surely clinched it.
Of course if you know just a tiny bit about 18th century politics, you realize that that name didn't go over that well outside of England. Plus it didn't help that Herschel thought he discovered a comet. The German astronomer Elert Bode was among the first to realize that Herschel had in fact discovered a planet.
Arguing that there should be consistency with the names of the previously discovered planets, Bode eventually convinced the world to call it Uranus. Bode of course wasn't thinking about the potty humor of lazy sitcom writers, and I doubt he'd care if they had chosen to blame him instead of Herschel for that planet's supposedly poor name choice.
Wikipedia shouldn't be anyone's go-to source for anything, but if the writers had bothered to at least skim the Wikipedia article, they would have noticed a section titled "Naming." Maybe they would have had the bad luck to check Wikipedia at a time that particular article was vandalized. Which is unlikely, as Wikipedia's articles on the planets are maintained with almost as much care as the Big Bang articles.
Lastly, a very minor nit: Raj and Sheldon agree to call the asteroid "Amy," after Sheldon's girlfriend Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler (Mayim Bialik). Seems kind of short to be the name of an object there are thousands of in our solar system. Though I don't know how long it would take for the International Astronomical Union to sign off on "00327 Amy" or whatever the final name wound up being.
the scientific jokes rely on the audience’s lack of understanding of the principles behind them
Read More: http://www.looper.com/4809/dumbest-things-big-bang-theory-one-talks/
Read More: http://www.looper.com/4809/dumbest-things-big-bang-theory-one-talks/
the scientific jokes rely on the audience’s lack of understanding of the principles behind them.
Read More: http://www.looper.com/4809/dumbest-things-big-bang-theory-one-talks/
Read More: http://www.looper.com/4809/dumbest-things-big-bang-theory-one-talks/
Thursday, January 7, 2016
The nitpickers awaken
By now you've probably read Seth Abramson's column "40 Unforgivable Plot Holes in 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'" and Matt Grunger's blistering rebuttal, or excuse-making for J. J. Abrams, depending on your viewpoint. There has been a lot of discussion as to what a plot hole is, how it differs from a coincidence, and so on and so forth.
But the problem is that Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens is a movie way too concerned with maintaining a breakneck pace and setting up questions for later movies to answer that it doesn't stand very well on its own, nor does it stand very well as a logical continuation of what has gone on in the previous two trilogies.
So it's no fun to nitpick this latest installment. After nitpicking this movie, or after defending this movie against the nitpickers, do you feel like you're talking about some great movie that will stand the test of time in the same way as A New Hope and Empire strikes back? I sure don't.
But the problem is that Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens is a movie way too concerned with maintaining a breakneck pace and setting up questions for later movies to answer that it doesn't stand very well on its own, nor does it stand very well as a logical continuation of what has gone on in the previous two trilogies.
So it's no fun to nitpick this latest installment. After nitpicking this movie, or after defending this movie against the nitpickers, do you feel like you're talking about some great movie that will stand the test of time in the same way as A New Hope and Empire strikes back? I sure don't.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Do you feel like a big man, Cult of Dusty?
Yesterday, YouTube star Cult of Dusty posted a video ripping Ahmed Mohammed to shreds. As in Ahmed Mohammed, the 14-year-old boy who brought a clock to school and set off a racist overreaction that made national news headlines. Do you feel like a big man, Cult of Dusty, beating up on a little boy? I am not impressed by a kid disassembling and reassembling a clock, either, but surely I have bigger people to beat up on than some little boy.
Yeah, yeah, I know, his main point is supposedly that liberals are just so damn gullible. Maybe Ahmed Mohammed wasn't actually trying to impress his teacher, maybe he was baiting them into overreacting in a racist, Islamaphobic way. Well, guess what, he succeeded! If liberals really are so damn gullible, surely there are ways to prove it that don't involve soiling a little boy's reputation to the max.
Children overstate their accomplishments all the time. One of my nephews, a 15-year-old boy, told me a few months ago that he is an officer in the United States Army. "Good for you," I replied. How was I supposed to reply to that? If I was Cult of Dusty, my response would have gone something like this: "No, you're not an officer in the United States Army. You're someone who has done well in a pretend military unit, which is not much of an accomplishment because most other people in that pretend military unit are fatsos and weaklings looking for a way out of gym class."
Of course my nephew is white, so he gets the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things. He could probably go to an elementary school openly carrying an automatic rifle and no one would think he's there to shoot up the place, like, you know, some other young white men have done in the past twenty years. But a young Arab boy brings a reassembled clock to school? Let's all rush to judgement and jump to the conclusion that he must be a terrorist.
Yeah, yeah, I know, his main point is supposedly that liberals are just so damn gullible. Maybe Ahmed Mohammed wasn't actually trying to impress his teacher, maybe he was baiting them into overreacting in a racist, Islamaphobic way. Well, guess what, he succeeded! If liberals really are so damn gullible, surely there are ways to prove it that don't involve soiling a little boy's reputation to the max.
Children overstate their accomplishments all the time. One of my nephews, a 15-year-old boy, told me a few months ago that he is an officer in the United States Army. "Good for you," I replied. How was I supposed to reply to that? If I was Cult of Dusty, my response would have gone something like this: "No, you're not an officer in the United States Army. You're someone who has done well in a pretend military unit, which is not much of an accomplishment because most other people in that pretend military unit are fatsos and weaklings looking for a way out of gym class."
Of course my nephew is white, so he gets the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things. He could probably go to an elementary school openly carrying an automatic rifle and no one would think he's there to shoot up the place, like, you know, some other young white men have done in the past twenty years. But a young Arab boy brings a reassembled clock to school? Let's all rush to judgement and jump to the conclusion that he must be a terrorist.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
The Hungarian artist who writes personal inscriptions in English
In our white male privilege, we often forget or ignore many little details. For example, that women can own art, and also that everybody knows English but it's not everybody's first language. Well, not everybody, but a significant majority of people in the world know at least a little English, which is more than we can say for a language like Nahuatl or Slovak.
There is a good illustration of this in an early episode of White Collar, Lisa's favorite show. The Season 1 episode "The Portrait" is about a painting, Young Girl with Locket, by Haustenburg, stolen at least twice before the episode begins. The first theft occurred at some point prior to 1967, when Walter (Peter McRobbie) from the Channing Museum ignores Haustenberg's will and an inscription on the back of the painting ("to my dearest Julianna, keep this forever"), and puts it into the Channing's collection instead of giving it to Haustenberg's illegitimate daughter Julianna. In 1967, Julianna somehow took the painting out of the Channing.
Fast forward to 2009 (I'm assuming episodes of this show are contemporaneous with their original airdates). Julianna Laszlo (Kim Shaw), the great-granddaughter of Haustenburg, owned the painting until it was stolen out of her house. FBI agent Peter Burke (Tim DeKay) and felon-turned-consultant Neal Caffrey (Matt Bomer) are on the case. As arrogant forgers go, Neal Caffrey is one of the most likable. After various twists and turns, Neal winds up in possession of the painting and knowledge of to whom the painting rightfully belongs, and he keeps both of these to himself until notorious loan shark Gerard Dorsett (Michael Crane) threatens the life of Taryn Vandersant (Deanna Russo), who had earlier helped Peter and Neal.
Neal confesses to Peter that he has the painting, and agrees to give it up so that Gerard can be busted and Taryn can be safe. But Neal knows that Peter, as an agent of an organization that enforces white male privilege, is duty-bound to return the painting to the Channing. However, Neal has a trick up his sleeve. He deliberately makes a forgery of the painting good enough to fool the casual observer but not a museum expert like Walter.
When Peter hands Walter the painting, he believes he's handing over the genuine original, but gets worried as Walter just keeps looking and looking at the painting. Walter turns it over, and instead of seeing Haustenburg's inscription, sees a special message from Neal:
Walter is forced to accept the painting as authentic.
It's a brilliant episode of a very good show. However, I have some nits (which is of course the point of this blog). First of all, why was Haustenburg's inscription in English? Shouldn't it be in Hungarian? Or did Haustenburg foresee that the inscription needed to be intelligible to a dishonest museum curator and a forger with a heart of gold in New York? Unless maybe the title girl with the locket was born in England or in America (Julianna Laszlo does say that Haustenburg had a family in Hungary, which doesn't rule out a love child anywhere in the world). Also, how exactly is it that the painting came to be in the possession of the Channing? How could Neal be so sure Walter was the one who read the original inscription and chose to ignore it?
My fellow nitpickers at WhiteCollarLexicon.com have a few more nits, including: why does Dorsett try to sell the painting to an art gallery in the same city in which it was stolen?
There is a good illustration of this in an early episode of White Collar, Lisa's favorite show. The Season 1 episode "The Portrait" is about a painting, Young Girl with Locket, by Haustenburg, stolen at least twice before the episode begins. The first theft occurred at some point prior to 1967, when Walter (Peter McRobbie) from the Channing Museum ignores Haustenberg's will and an inscription on the back of the painting ("to my dearest Julianna, keep this forever"), and puts it into the Channing's collection instead of giving it to Haustenberg's illegitimate daughter Julianna. In 1967, Julianna somehow took the painting out of the Channing.
Fast forward to 2009 (I'm assuming episodes of this show are contemporaneous with their original airdates). Julianna Laszlo (Kim Shaw), the great-granddaughter of Haustenburg, owned the painting until it was stolen out of her house. FBI agent Peter Burke (Tim DeKay) and felon-turned-consultant Neal Caffrey (Matt Bomer) are on the case. As arrogant forgers go, Neal Caffrey is one of the most likable. After various twists and turns, Neal winds up in possession of the painting and knowledge of to whom the painting rightfully belongs, and he keeps both of these to himself until notorious loan shark Gerard Dorsett (Michael Crane) threatens the life of Taryn Vandersant (Deanna Russo), who had earlier helped Peter and Neal.
Neal confesses to Peter that he has the painting, and agrees to give it up so that Gerard can be busted and Taryn can be safe. But Neal knows that Peter, as an agent of an organization that enforces white male privilege, is duty-bound to return the painting to the Channing. However, Neal has a trick up his sleeve. He deliberately makes a forgery of the painting good enough to fool the casual observer but not a museum expert like Walter.
When Peter hands Walter the painting, he believes he's handing over the genuine original, but gets worried as Walter just keeps looking and looking at the painting. Walter turns it over, and instead of seeing Haustenburg's inscription, sees a special message from Neal:
My dear Walter, I know what you saw here last time. NC
Walter is forced to accept the painting as authentic.
It's a brilliant episode of a very good show. However, I have some nits (which is of course the point of this blog). First of all, why was Haustenburg's inscription in English? Shouldn't it be in Hungarian? Or did Haustenburg foresee that the inscription needed to be intelligible to a dishonest museum curator and a forger with a heart of gold in New York? Unless maybe the title girl with the locket was born in England or in America (Julianna Laszlo does say that Haustenburg had a family in Hungary, which doesn't rule out a love child anywhere in the world). Also, how exactly is it that the painting came to be in the possession of the Channing? How could Neal be so sure Walter was the one who read the original inscription and chose to ignore it?
My fellow nitpickers at WhiteCollarLexicon.com have a few more nits, including: why does Dorsett try to sell the painting to an art gallery in the same city in which it was stolen?
Friday, November 7, 2014
Metronome lost in the whiplash
I just got around to seeing Whiplash, a movie the critics are raving about as "exhilarating," "outstanding" and "electrifying." But I just want to go yell at writer-director Damien Chazelle: "Do you know what a [expletive] metronome is? Maybe if I stick one up your [expletive] you'll be [expletive]ing quarter notes for the rest of your miserable uncle-[expletive]ing life! Maybe I should also stick a jazz history book up in there while I'm at it!"
As Drill Sergeant Fletcher (J. K. Simmons) berates the young drummer Andrew (Miles Teller) about his failure to keep proper tempo, yell-asking "Are you rushing or dragging?", he points to the metronome marking at the top of the chart, but it doesn't occur to anyone to take out a metronome to see what the real tempo is supposed to be. If it's so important to have your music conservatory professor yelling at the student, the results of the metronome comparison leave plenty of room for further berating: if it turns out Andrew had the right tempo after all, Fletcher could just berate him for not sticking to his guts.
But I'm a nitpicker, not a critic. There are much more fundamental problems with this movie than forgetting a piece of technology or fumbling a music history factoid. J. R. Jones hits the nail on the head with his review in the Chicago Reader.
As Drill Sergeant Fletcher (J. K. Simmons) berates the young drummer Andrew (Miles Teller) about his failure to keep proper tempo, yell-asking "Are you rushing or dragging?", he points to the metronome marking at the top of the chart, but it doesn't occur to anyone to take out a metronome to see what the real tempo is supposed to be. If it's so important to have your music conservatory professor yelling at the student, the results of the metronome comparison leave plenty of room for further berating: if it turns out Andrew had the right tempo after all, Fletcher could just berate him for not sticking to his guts.
But I'm a nitpicker, not a critic. There are much more fundamental problems with this movie than forgetting a piece of technology or fumbling a music history factoid. J. R. Jones hits the nail on the head with his review in the Chicago Reader.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
My opponent is taking money from billionaires!!! (but shhh: so am I)
So I'm in Michigan for a couple of weeks researching women candidates in national politics. Just as with men, there is good and bad among women. In the race to take Carl Levin's Senate seat, Republican Terri Lynn Land is duking it out with Democrat Gary Peters.
An ad for Gary Peters claims that Land is taking campaign money from the notorious Koch brothers but of course makes no mention of Peters taking money from out-of-state billionaire Tom Steyer. And of course an ad for Land makes sure to trumpet Steyer's money going into Peters's campaign without mentioning the Kochs.
But hey, look, any serious Republican or Democratic contender for a Senate seat has got to be taking money from billionaires. It's just the way things are.
An ad for Gary Peters claims that Land is taking campaign money from the notorious Koch brothers but of course makes no mention of Peters taking money from out-of-state billionaire Tom Steyer. And of course an ad for Land makes sure to trumpet Steyer's money going into Peters's campaign without mentioning the Kochs.
But hey, look, any serious Republican or Democratic contender for a Senate seat has got to be taking money from billionaires. It's just the way things are.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Tazed in the brain
Maybe Chuck Lorre is putting all his scientific and technological consultants on The Big Bang Theory. But he ought to put at least one of those on Two and a Half Men, since Ashton Kutcher's character Walden is supposed to be some sort of computer genius turned millionaire. The technobabble does not quite come up to Star Trek levels, but since this show takes place in the present, there is the definite danger of the show's writers making a serious gaffe.
On tonight's Men rerun, Nicole (Odette Annable) asks Walden for help with her software start-up, presumably coding and capital. After some haggling, Walden agrees. After reviewing the computer code, Walden has a suggestion: "if we reconfigure this kernel, we're gonna save a lot of time and money." Sounds vague enough that it could apply to anything, right?
Well, I did a Google search for "reconfigure the kernel," and it seems that it's mostly a Linux or Unix thing. Of course the episode doesn't tell us what exactly it is that Nicole's software company is working on. A website? A database? An operating system? A mobile app? Not that Men is all that funny a show to begin with, but failing to pay attention to details like these does not help matters.
Apparently, this kernel reconfiguration business is antiquated, like, say, mobile pagers. "It's good, you know, for 2002," says Barry (Clark Duke). You know what else was available in 2002? Source code control. Despite Barry and Nicole's criticism, Walden goes ahead with the kernel reconfiguration, causing Nicole to complain that it's going to take her a day to undo Walden's "help." Walden claims he can undo it in an hour. Um, excuse me, does this mean that Nicole's start-up doesn't use source code control?
Microsoft's MSDN summarizes source code control thus: "Source code control ... allows different developers to work on the same project, with reduced fears of lost code or overwritten changes. Source code control also implies a version control system that can manage files through the development lifecycle, keeping track of which changes were made, who made them, when they were made, and why." So if Nicole uses source code control, shouldn't she be able to undo Walden's changes in a matter of minutes if not seconds? Unless maybe both Barry and Nicole think source code control is such an antiquated concept not worthy of their use. It's possible there are developers like that in real life, but in this context it diminishes credibility in the tech cred of these characters.
By the way, TV Guide made a mistake. The episode described above, bearing the classy (not!) title "Tazed in the Lady Nuts," was what reran tonight, and not "West Side Story."
On tonight's Men rerun, Nicole (Odette Annable) asks Walden for help with her software start-up, presumably coding and capital. After some haggling, Walden agrees. After reviewing the computer code, Walden has a suggestion: "if we reconfigure this kernel, we're gonna save a lot of time and money." Sounds vague enough that it could apply to anything, right?
Well, I did a Google search for "reconfigure the kernel," and it seems that it's mostly a Linux or Unix thing. Of course the episode doesn't tell us what exactly it is that Nicole's software company is working on. A website? A database? An operating system? A mobile app? Not that Men is all that funny a show to begin with, but failing to pay attention to details like these does not help matters.
Apparently, this kernel reconfiguration business is antiquated, like, say, mobile pagers. "It's good, you know, for 2002," says Barry (Clark Duke). You know what else was available in 2002? Source code control. Despite Barry and Nicole's criticism, Walden goes ahead with the kernel reconfiguration, causing Nicole to complain that it's going to take her a day to undo Walden's "help." Walden claims he can undo it in an hour. Um, excuse me, does this mean that Nicole's start-up doesn't use source code control?
Microsoft's MSDN summarizes source code control thus: "Source code control ... allows different developers to work on the same project, with reduced fears of lost code or overwritten changes. Source code control also implies a version control system that can manage files through the development lifecycle, keeping track of which changes were made, who made them, when they were made, and why." So if Nicole uses source code control, shouldn't she be able to undo Walden's changes in a matter of minutes if not seconds? Unless maybe both Barry and Nicole think source code control is such an antiquated concept not worthy of their use. It's possible there are developers like that in real life, but in this context it diminishes credibility in the tech cred of these characters.
By the way, TV Guide made a mistake. The episode described above, bearing the classy (not!) title "Tazed in the Lady Nuts," was what reran tonight, and not "West Side Story."
Monday, July 28, 2014
Family Guy to jump shark after Simpsons crossover
Many years ago, Seth Macfarlane joked about Family Guy lasting twenty seasons, getting to a point the writers are so bereft of ideas they decide to do an entire episode about Greg the Weather-Mime. That doesn't sound as awful as the crap that's on the horizon for the show's thirteenth season.
The show's producers have released a 5-minute clip of the upcoming season premiere, which is a crossover with The Simpsons. That clip is actually pretty funny, in my opinion, and bodes very well for the show if it is indicative of the quality of the rest of the episode.
What the writers have planned after that episode is what makes me wonder if the show will become so pathetically lame that I stop watching it. There's apparently going to be an episode in which Stewie becomes pregnant with Brian's baby. Yeah, yeah, I accept the idea of a talking dog. I even accept the idea of Brian having a human son by a human woman. But a human baby boy becoming pregnant with a dog's baby? That sounds just way too idiotic to me.
The show's producers have released a 5-minute clip of the upcoming season premiere, which is a crossover with The Simpsons. That clip is actually pretty funny, in my opinion, and bodes very well for the show if it is indicative of the quality of the rest of the episode.
What the writers have planned after that episode is what makes me wonder if the show will become so pathetically lame that I stop watching it. There's apparently going to be an episode in which Stewie becomes pregnant with Brian's baby. Yeah, yeah, I accept the idea of a talking dog. I even accept the idea of Brian having a human son by a human woman. But a human baby boy becoming pregnant with a dog's baby? That sounds just way too idiotic to me.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Nitpicking the Vincent Chin memorial mural
About a week ago, Jim Fore asked me if he could write a blog post nitpicking the new Vincent Chin memorial mural in Detroit. He thought I would object, because on this blog we usually nitpick such low-brow fare as G. I. Joe movies and Republican political ads. A memorial mural would seem to be out of our depth here.
But given how seldom we publish posts on this blog, I think that maybe we should try to fire off a post every time we come across half-baked concepts and poorly communicated messages in whatever media we find them. The Vincent Chin memorial mural abounds in both. But part of the reason we publish so infrequently is just not having time. Jim sent me some photos of the mural, but now he started a second job so he really doesn't have time to write for this blog anymore.
So I'm going to write the post about the Vincent Chin memorial mural by Andrew Pisacane, a.k.a. GAIA in Detroit. Now, Jim lives in Detroit, I don't, so I'm less qualified than he is to write this blog post. But when he gets a chance to read it, he'll let me know if I've made any mistakes. Bringing GAIA to Detroit was sponsored by the Great River Creative Corridor (GRCC), which has also sponsored murals by Detroit artists.
Good art is supposed to communicate profound messages encoded with obscure references, right? The Vincent Chin memorial mural abounds in obscure references, portraying, in addition to Vincent Chin, these three other guys: Ludwig Erhard, Sun Yun-Suan and Hayato Ikeda.
Who was Vincent Chin? According to RememberingVincentChin.com, he was a Chinese American raised in metro Detroit who was killed by two white American auto workers a week before his wedding. The two idiots thought that Chin was Japanese and therefore responsible for the American car companies' problems. The two killers spent many days in court but never a day in prison.
Who was Ludwig Erhard? Was he one of the killers? Nope. Not even related. According to the Brooklyn Street Art blog, "Ludwig Erhard was a German politician notable for his role in Germany’s robust post war recovery." Huh? What?
Alright, moving on to Yun-suan: he "was credited for overseeing the transformation of Taiwan from being a mainly agricultural economy to an export powerhouse." Again: huh? What?
Then Ikeda: "the single most important figure in Japan’s rapid growth." Right. Okay. Sure. Whatever.
I'm confused. If I'm understanding correctly, according to the artist, GAIA, these three men represent "post war economic miracles as a portrait of global competition that led to layoffs in Detroit and fueled the frustration and xenophobia behind Vincent Chin's murder." Is GAIA making excuses for the two people who actually killed Chin and shifting the blame to three politicians who most likely never met Chin in person? This is disgraceful scapegoating.
GAIA goes around the country painting murals. In Greenville, North Carolina, he painted a nice mural with calla lilies. In Atlanta, Georgia, he painted a mural with a beautiful sky and many colors. In Detroit, Michigan, he painted a gray mural tying the death of a Chinese American to three foreign politicians. Jim says "this is your typical New York artist coming to Detroit to bash this city." Jim also told me that GAIA painted over a mural by a Detroit artist.
I don't know who this GAIA is, but I wager that he is a clueless white artist operating under his own set of misconceptions. Is he that different from the men who actually killed Vincent Chin? Maybe someone should paint a mural of Ronald Ebens, Michael Nitz, Judge Charles Kaufman and GAIA, see how GAIA likes that.
No, that's a bad idea. Two wrongs don't make a right. Here's a wild, crazy idea: if you really want to paint a mural that honors Vincent Chin, try thinking about the kind of man he was and the kind of man he could have become. Maybe then the Chin family will endorse your mural.
UPDATE, August 19, 2014: Pisacane's mural has now been painted over by Sintex. Of course GRCC money man Derek Weaver has put out a statement expressing condolences to Chin's family (hey, if I was an immigrant and my son was murdered by racist idiots, I should be very sad about a mural by some clueless, privileged white man-child getting painted over, right?).
Weaver's statement also paints Sintex as an ungrateful bastard. Also of course Sintex has not been given an opportunity to present his side of the story in a coherent way. No word yet on whether Sintex will simply repaint his original mural or do something different.
But given how seldom we publish posts on this blog, I think that maybe we should try to fire off a post every time we come across half-baked concepts and poorly communicated messages in whatever media we find them. The Vincent Chin memorial mural abounds in both. But part of the reason we publish so infrequently is just not having time. Jim sent me some photos of the mural, but now he started a second job so he really doesn't have time to write for this blog anymore.
So I'm going to write the post about the Vincent Chin memorial mural by Andrew Pisacane, a.k.a. GAIA in Detroit. Now, Jim lives in Detroit, I don't, so I'm less qualified than he is to write this blog post. But when he gets a chance to read it, he'll let me know if I've made any mistakes. Bringing GAIA to Detroit was sponsored by the Great River Creative Corridor (GRCC), which has also sponsored murals by Detroit artists.
Good art is supposed to communicate profound messages encoded with obscure references, right? The Vincent Chin memorial mural abounds in obscure references, portraying, in addition to Vincent Chin, these three other guys: Ludwig Erhard, Sun Yun-Suan and Hayato Ikeda.
Who was Vincent Chin? According to RememberingVincentChin.com, he was a Chinese American raised in metro Detroit who was killed by two white American auto workers a week before his wedding. The two idiots thought that Chin was Japanese and therefore responsible for the American car companies' problems. The two killers spent many days in court but never a day in prison.
Who was Ludwig Erhard? Was he one of the killers? Nope. Not even related. According to the Brooklyn Street Art blog, "Ludwig Erhard was a German politician notable for his role in Germany’s robust post war recovery." Huh? What?
Alright, moving on to Yun-suan: he "was credited for overseeing the transformation of Taiwan from being a mainly agricultural economy to an export powerhouse." Again: huh? What?
Then Ikeda: "the single most important figure in Japan’s rapid growth." Right. Okay. Sure. Whatever.
I'm confused. If I'm understanding correctly, according to the artist, GAIA, these three men represent "post war economic miracles as a portrait of global competition that led to layoffs in Detroit and fueled the frustration and xenophobia behind Vincent Chin's murder." Is GAIA making excuses for the two people who actually killed Chin and shifting the blame to three politicians who most likely never met Chin in person? This is disgraceful scapegoating.
GAIA goes around the country painting murals. In Greenville, North Carolina, he painted a nice mural with calla lilies. In Atlanta, Georgia, he painted a mural with a beautiful sky and many colors. In Detroit, Michigan, he painted a gray mural tying the death of a Chinese American to three foreign politicians. Jim says "this is your typical New York artist coming to Detroit to bash this city." Jim also told me that GAIA painted over a mural by a Detroit artist.
I don't know who this GAIA is, but I wager that he is a clueless white artist operating under his own set of misconceptions. Is he that different from the men who actually killed Vincent Chin? Maybe someone should paint a mural of Ronald Ebens, Michael Nitz, Judge Charles Kaufman and GAIA, see how GAIA likes that.
No, that's a bad idea. Two wrongs don't make a right. Here's a wild, crazy idea: if you really want to paint a mural that honors Vincent Chin, try thinking about the kind of man he was and the kind of man he could have become. Maybe then the Chin family will endorse your mural.
UPDATE, August 19, 2014: Pisacane's mural has now been painted over by Sintex. Of course GRCC money man Derek Weaver has put out a statement expressing condolences to Chin's family (hey, if I was an immigrant and my son was murdered by racist idiots, I should be very sad about a mural by some clueless, privileged white man-child getting painted over, right?).
Weaver's statement also paints Sintex as an ungrateful bastard. Also of course Sintex has not been given an opportunity to present his side of the story in a coherent way. No word yet on whether Sintex will simply repaint his original mural or do something different.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Thanks for the cash, but I'll pass on the duck
Aflac pays you cash if you're injured. There's a new commercial (I don't know when it started airing) that shows a woman in her garage telling a man about how Aflac is paying her cash as the Aflac duck makes a bit of a mess playing with the tools. "He doesn't know anything about tools," the woman tells the man in response to a question from him.
Insurance commercials these days seem to feel this need to be humorous. There's GEICO, with their ads that say everyone already knows that GEICO can "save you 15% or more on car insurance." "But did you know Old McDonald was a really bad speller?" It's irrelevant, but at least it's amusing.
Compare the GEICO Old McDonald commercial to the Aflac "he doesn't know anything about tools" ad. The duck at one point attempts to start a chainsaw that could potentially slice his belly. Then with a caulk gun, he shoots the woman's coffee cup and an overhead light. The woman reminisces about how when she broke her arm, Aflac paid her claim in just four days. But with that duck fooling around in her garage, she could soon have a new claim to file.
Maybe that's amusing to you, but it's not irrelevant. "He doesn't have to know tools when he pays claims this fast," says a heading on the Aflac website. Yeah, but he does have to know tools if he's going to even think about touching any of the tools in my garage. If I chose insurance based on commercials alone, I think I'd have to go with GEICO, not Aflac.
Insurance commercials these days seem to feel this need to be humorous. There's GEICO, with their ads that say everyone already knows that GEICO can "save you 15% or more on car insurance." "But did you know Old McDonald was a really bad speller?" It's irrelevant, but at least it's amusing.
Compare the GEICO Old McDonald commercial to the Aflac "he doesn't know anything about tools" ad. The duck at one point attempts to start a chainsaw that could potentially slice his belly. Then with a caulk gun, he shoots the woman's coffee cup and an overhead light. The woman reminisces about how when she broke her arm, Aflac paid her claim in just four days. But with that duck fooling around in her garage, she could soon have a new claim to file.
Maybe that's amusing to you, but it's not irrelevant. "He doesn't have to know tools when he pays claims this fast," says a heading on the Aflac website. Yeah, but he does have to know tools if he's going to even think about touching any of the tools in my garage. If I chose insurance based on commercials alone, I think I'd have to go with GEICO, not Aflac.
Monday, May 26, 2014
The obvious genius
One of the most tired tropes in movies and TV is this idea of the genius whose talent in a particular field is instantly obvious to any other practitioner in the field who sees an example of the genius's work. This conceit occurs frequently with writers. In the case of The Words (2012), the genius is a novelist played by two different actors (Ben Barnes in youth, Jeremy Irons in old age), yet for some reason he doesn't get a name.
Some time after World War II, the young man moved to France, took up a job writing for an English language publication for "expats," and married a French waitress. After the tragic loss of their baby, the young man was inspired to write a brilliant novel, but the novel was misplaced on a train and lost for many years.
Until it is discovered by Rory Jansen (Bradley Cooper), a mediocre writer who has gotten enough rejection letters to fill up a binder and is marking time as a low-ranking employee at a publishing company. Rory is so impressed by the typewritten novel that he is compelled to type it on his computer verbatim. His wife Dora (Zoe Saldana) convinces him to show it to someone at his workplace. Rory does, leading to inevitable success.
And an inevitable confrontation with the true author, who claims to want neither byline nor payment. Rory comes clean to his publisher, who is understandably angry. After some convincing from the publisher and from the true author, Rory decides to continue the charade, and the secret of the true authorship of The Window Tears dies with the author.
Here I have presented the story of the movie in a straight line. But the way the story is presented in the movie, you'd be forgiven for initially thinking that Rory might actually be a very good writer who just hasn't caught the break he so desperately needs.
That's because in real life, the work of a genius is not immediately obvious to everyone. Try googling "rejection letters to famous authors." You probably won't even have to type the whole thing. Animal Farm by George Orwell and Moby Dick by Herman Melville are but two bestsellers to have gotten rejection letters your search will turn up. And a book we're led to believe was a source of inspiration for The Window Tears, The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, was deemed "tedious and offensive" by Peacock & Peacock in 1925.
So it's not just amazing that the misplaced novel was found by a novelist, it's also amazing that a novel which was so spontaneously written was also immediately recognized as a work of genius by the very first publisher it was shown to. Genius or hack, any novelist who makes any effort to get published will get rejection letters. Only in the movies will the publishers who pass on brilliant first time authors feel like idiots. In real life, publishers of print books have become very risk-averse, something this movie's screenwriters should have known back in the 1990s when they started working on this story.
Some time after World War II, the young man moved to France, took up a job writing for an English language publication for "expats," and married a French waitress. After the tragic loss of their baby, the young man was inspired to write a brilliant novel, but the novel was misplaced on a train and lost for many years.
Until it is discovered by Rory Jansen (Bradley Cooper), a mediocre writer who has gotten enough rejection letters to fill up a binder and is marking time as a low-ranking employee at a publishing company. Rory is so impressed by the typewritten novel that he is compelled to type it on his computer verbatim. His wife Dora (Zoe Saldana) convinces him to show it to someone at his workplace. Rory does, leading to inevitable success.
And an inevitable confrontation with the true author, who claims to want neither byline nor payment. Rory comes clean to his publisher, who is understandably angry. After some convincing from the publisher and from the true author, Rory decides to continue the charade, and the secret of the true authorship of The Window Tears dies with the author.
Here I have presented the story of the movie in a straight line. But the way the story is presented in the movie, you'd be forgiven for initially thinking that Rory might actually be a very good writer who just hasn't caught the break he so desperately needs.
That's because in real life, the work of a genius is not immediately obvious to everyone. Try googling "rejection letters to famous authors." You probably won't even have to type the whole thing. Animal Farm by George Orwell and Moby Dick by Herman Melville are but two bestsellers to have gotten rejection letters your search will turn up. And a book we're led to believe was a source of inspiration for The Window Tears, The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, was deemed "tedious and offensive" by Peacock & Peacock in 1925.
So it's not just amazing that the misplaced novel was found by a novelist, it's also amazing that a novel which was so spontaneously written was also immediately recognized as a work of genius by the very first publisher it was shown to. Genius or hack, any novelist who makes any effort to get published will get rejection letters. Only in the movies will the publishers who pass on brilliant first time authors feel like idiots. In real life, publishers of print books have become very risk-averse, something this movie's screenwriters should have known back in the 1990s when they started working on this story.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
A couple of things they're probably not gonna teach you in screenwriting class
"Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." Nowhere has that aphorism been truer than when it comes to screenwriting. My young cousin Jim took a screenwriting class with Joel Silvers at Wayne State University, and told me that Silvers is the worst washed up has-been to ever teach screenwriting (though I doubt he would have gotten a much better instructor if he hadn't gone out of state).
From what Jimmy has told me, Silvers is quite awful. But if you go to almost any university that has screenwriting courses, you will find that the screenwriting instructor is a hack more interested in telling stories from his long-gone glory days than in critiquing the dozens and dozens of pages he's made you write for nothing.
Anyone who seriously wants to be a screenwriter needs to know these two things:
From what Jimmy has told me, Silvers is quite awful. But if you go to almost any university that has screenwriting courses, you will find that the screenwriting instructor is a hack more interested in telling stories from his long-gone glory days than in critiquing the dozens and dozens of pages he's made you write for nothing.
Anyone who seriously wants to be a screenwriter needs to know these two things:
- A successful screenplay has more than one author. A hack teaching screenwriting will put a lot of pressure on you to write an excellent screenplay. Not by offering insightful critique, mind you, but simply by repeatedly saying worthless things like "It has to be good!" The hack won't explicitly say so, but he might occasionally make the very subtle acknowledgement that most of Hollywood's most successful screenplays have at least two credited authors and who knows how many uncredited. It's true that most Oscar-winning screenplays have only one credited author (usually a famous director, like Spike Jonze, Quentin Tarantino or Woody Allen), and it's also true that some of the worst movies have had as many as five credited screenwriters. But in general, if your screenplay gets made into a movie and you're not the director, your screenplay's gonna get rewritten by someone else. Plus the director may cut out some scenes and let the actors ad-lib.
- Not everyone watching a movie is a completely ignorant moron. The hack screenwriting instructor will pressure you to do lots and lots of research but he will also pressure you to not actually use it in your screenplay. For example, the student might be expected to read an entire book about whist (it's a card game, more like bridge than like poker, from what I understand) and write a complete set of biographies for every single character in the screenplay before the next time the class meets. But then, when the student screenwriter writes a whist scene with authentic, believable whist play, the hack teacher tells the student to change it to something more dramatic, and to sacrifice the whist authenticity, because "no one watching this movie knows anything about whist." But this is a false dilemma. High drama does not rule out authenticity, and authenticity doesn't rule out high drama. The director doesn't need to show every hand being played. But there will be someone watching who does know about whist, even if just enough to notice if something is not quite right about the game. If the movie gets the whist wrong, that might make someone not want to watch the rest of the movie. Of course some of these things cross over into the job of the continuity staff. If the screenwriter can make things easier for the continuity staff, he should.
Friday, August 2, 2013
A couple of lessons on military rank for G. I. Joe screenwriters
If you want military accuracy on the big screen, a G. I. Joe movie is the last place you should be looking for it. You know, I could write an entire book nitpicking either G. I. Joe: Rise of Cobra or the latest installment, but I am not so inclined. But there are two details in G. I. Joe: Retaliation which compel me to address the lack of military accuracy in that film.
First of all, early on Duke (Channing Tatum) tells Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson) that he has to "take" his next promotion. Is Roadblock dodging promotion? That sort of thing might make sense on Star Trek: The Next Generation, but it does not really make sense in the context of today's military, in which rank is considered to be of paramount importance.
Consider for example that promotions to some of the lower enlisted ranks are almost automatic: if you are a Pfc with no bad marks in your SRB, you're going to be a Lance Corporal well before the halfway mark of your enlistment contract. Consider also that there is attrition due to rank stagnation: maybe you can be a Staff Sergeant though an entire 4-year contract. But if you're not in line to make Gunnery Sergeant, you should probably not bother to apply for reenlistment. Yeah, I know, those are Marine ranks. Maybe the Army is a little more lenient about soldiers who get stuck at a particular rank. But probably just a little.
The other detail that compelled me to write this is when Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki) tells Duke that she wanted to outrank her father so that he would have to salute her. I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze Jaye to determine why that would make sense as a motivation for her.
But I will question why she chose to enlist (as opposed to trying to get into a military academy and becoming a commissioned officer) if being saluted by her father was indeed her goal. A Staff Sergeant outranks a Sergeant, but a Sergeant does not salute a Staff Sergeant. Someone a Sergeant does salute is a Second Lieutenant, even one who just got her gold bars.
Lady Jaye's plan becomes completely nonsensical if her father was an officer to begin with. Let's say Lord Jaye was a Lt. Colonel. A Lt. Colonel salutes Colonels and Generals. But not Second Lieutenants. Unless that Second Lieutenant won a Medal of Honor... At the end of the movie, General Joe Colton (Bruce Willis) salutes Lady Jaye, substituting Jaye's now defunct father. Yeah... okay... sure, whatever.
First of all, early on Duke (Channing Tatum) tells Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson) that he has to "take" his next promotion. Is Roadblock dodging promotion? That sort of thing might make sense on Star Trek: The Next Generation, but it does not really make sense in the context of today's military, in which rank is considered to be of paramount importance.
Consider for example that promotions to some of the lower enlisted ranks are almost automatic: if you are a Pfc with no bad marks in your SRB, you're going to be a Lance Corporal well before the halfway mark of your enlistment contract. Consider also that there is attrition due to rank stagnation: maybe you can be a Staff Sergeant though an entire 4-year contract. But if you're not in line to make Gunnery Sergeant, you should probably not bother to apply for reenlistment. Yeah, I know, those are Marine ranks. Maybe the Army is a little more lenient about soldiers who get stuck at a particular rank. But probably just a little.
The other detail that compelled me to write this is when Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki) tells Duke that she wanted to outrank her father so that he would have to salute her. I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze Jaye to determine why that would make sense as a motivation for her.
But I will question why she chose to enlist (as opposed to trying to get into a military academy and becoming a commissioned officer) if being saluted by her father was indeed her goal. A Staff Sergeant outranks a Sergeant, but a Sergeant does not salute a Staff Sergeant. Someone a Sergeant does salute is a Second Lieutenant, even one who just got her gold bars.
Lady Jaye's plan becomes completely nonsensical if her father was an officer to begin with. Let's say Lord Jaye was a Lt. Colonel. A Lt. Colonel salutes Colonels and Generals. But not Second Lieutenants. Unless that Second Lieutenant won a Medal of Honor... At the end of the movie, General Joe Colton (Bruce Willis) salutes Lady Jaye, substituting Jaye's now defunct father. Yeah... okay... sure, whatever.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Debunking the deceptive ads about the ballot proposals
There is more to this election than deciding whether or not Obama gets a second term. In Michigan, voters will be faced with six state ballot proposals and, depending on where in Michigan they live, a potential slew of county and city proposals. There have been ads on TV for five of the six proposals, and a lot of those ads are filled with lies. Here now I try to debunk some of those lies.
Proposal 2 aims to protect collective bargaining, and has been described by opponents as "forced unionizing." One of the opposition ads claims that with Proposal 2, a teacher can be caught drunk on the job five times before getting fired. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see anything at all in the ballot proposal language that tells me "teacher has five chances to be drunk on the job."
Another item with a number brought up by anti-Prop 2 ads is that Prop 2 would jeopardize 170 laws. I don't dispute the count of the affected laws, since the ballot proposal language does reference "future and existing" laws. But what I wonder is this: why are those laws worth keeping intact? The ads don't say.
Proposal 3 would require energy companies in Michigan to use at least 25% renewable energy sources by 2025. Predictably this scares energy companies, which have put out ads claiming Proposal 3 would hike a customer's energy bill up to $2,511.40. Given that the average energy bill is $72.00, the $2,511.40 figure sounds very scary. But the ballot language explicitly puts in a 1% cap on rate increases. The $72.00 bill would go up to $79.20. Oh my God, the humanity. There are actually good reasons to reject Proposal 3, but the energy companies have insulted the intelligence of the voters by employing scare tactics and lies instead of simple, logical arguments.
The only Proposal 4 ads I've seen show seniors and medical professionals expressing their endorsement of the home care amendment. I can't really object to that, though I plan to vote no on the measure.
I've only seen one ad about Proposal 5. The opposition ad tells it like it is: the initiative is from billionaire bridge owner Matty Moroun, who is determined to reduce his taxes to $0 if at all possible. The measure would require a 2/3 majority of the state legislature or a statewide vote at a general election to raise any tax by any amount for any reason. It's hard to know how many state legislators have been bought and paid for by Moroun, but my guess is more than a third. Therefore, the effect of Proposal 5 would be to effectively kill any future tax increases, no matter how necessary for a state that already takes in less in taxes than what it needs to provide vital services.
But the proposal that is nearest and dearest to Scrooge Moroun's heart is Proposal 6, which would require the people to vote on any international bridge project. The ads in favor of Proposal 6 are outrageous lies in service of Moroun's short-sighted greed. But a lot of people have been fooled, making me want to scream: CANADA IS PAYING MICHIGAN'S HALF OF THE BILL!!! And if they renege, we can invade their country.
By ignoring the inconvenient little fact of the agreement with Canada, ads in favor of Proposal 6 then go on to raise the question of how is it possible for there to be money for a new bridge but not money to pay police and firefighters (some localities in Michigan have had to drastically cut back their first responder staff). Let me scream again: FEDERAL MATCHING ROAD FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR ROAD PROJECTS, AND NOT FOR ANYTHING ELSE. If Michigan doesn't do a road project for something like the bridge, then the federal matching money goes to another state.
Do we really need a new bridge? That's a valid question. Moroun's deeds have told the truth where his words have not: If you drive on Fort Street by St. Anne, you will see that Moroun started construction on a new bridge right next to his Ambassador Bridge. But since neither the American nor Canadian governments gave him permission to do this, Moroun's new bridge stops well short of the Detroit River.
Be sure to vote this Tuesday. But first be sure to educate yourself on the difference between the proposals' stated intentions and their true consequences if enacted.
Proposal 2 aims to protect collective bargaining, and has been described by opponents as "forced unionizing." One of the opposition ads claims that with Proposal 2, a teacher can be caught drunk on the job five times before getting fired. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see anything at all in the ballot proposal language that tells me "teacher has five chances to be drunk on the job."
Another item with a number brought up by anti-Prop 2 ads is that Prop 2 would jeopardize 170 laws. I don't dispute the count of the affected laws, since the ballot proposal language does reference "future and existing" laws. But what I wonder is this: why are those laws worth keeping intact? The ads don't say.
Proposal 3 would require energy companies in Michigan to use at least 25% renewable energy sources by 2025. Predictably this scares energy companies, which have put out ads claiming Proposal 3 would hike a customer's energy bill up to $2,511.40. Given that the average energy bill is $72.00, the $2,511.40 figure sounds very scary. But the ballot language explicitly puts in a 1% cap on rate increases. The $72.00 bill would go up to $79.20. Oh my God, the humanity. There are actually good reasons to reject Proposal 3, but the energy companies have insulted the intelligence of the voters by employing scare tactics and lies instead of simple, logical arguments.
The only Proposal 4 ads I've seen show seniors and medical professionals expressing their endorsement of the home care amendment. I can't really object to that, though I plan to vote no on the measure.
I've only seen one ad about Proposal 5. The opposition ad tells it like it is: the initiative is from billionaire bridge owner Matty Moroun, who is determined to reduce his taxes to $0 if at all possible. The measure would require a 2/3 majority of the state legislature or a statewide vote at a general election to raise any tax by any amount for any reason. It's hard to know how many state legislators have been bought and paid for by Moroun, but my guess is more than a third. Therefore, the effect of Proposal 5 would be to effectively kill any future tax increases, no matter how necessary for a state that already takes in less in taxes than what it needs to provide vital services.
But the proposal that is nearest and dearest to Scrooge Moroun's heart is Proposal 6, which would require the people to vote on any international bridge project. The ads in favor of Proposal 6 are outrageous lies in service of Moroun's short-sighted greed. But a lot of people have been fooled, making me want to scream: CANADA IS PAYING MICHIGAN'S HALF OF THE BILL!!! And if they renege, we can invade their country.
By ignoring the inconvenient little fact of the agreement with Canada, ads in favor of Proposal 6 then go on to raise the question of how is it possible for there to be money for a new bridge but not money to pay police and firefighters (some localities in Michigan have had to drastically cut back their first responder staff). Let me scream again: FEDERAL MATCHING ROAD FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR ROAD PROJECTS, AND NOT FOR ANYTHING ELSE. If Michigan doesn't do a road project for something like the bridge, then the federal matching money goes to another state.
Do we really need a new bridge? That's a valid question. Moroun's deeds have told the truth where his words have not: If you drive on Fort Street by St. Anne, you will see that Moroun started construction on a new bridge right next to his Ambassador Bridge. But since neither the American nor Canadian governments gave him permission to do this, Moroun's new bridge stops well short of the Detroit River.
Be sure to vote this Tuesday. But first be sure to educate yourself on the difference between the proposals' stated intentions and their true consequences if enacted.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
More lies from the Bridge Company
There is yet another deceitful ad on the Detroit and Windsor airwaves from Matty Moroun's company railing against the "government bridge." Supposedly, the Michigan Legislature voted no, but Gov. Snyder is going to build the government bridge anyway and stick taxpayers with the bill, because tolls are not going to be enough to pay for it. What are they gonna say next? That Snyder is going to get in a time machine and kill George Washington and Jesus Christ?
Here is the truth about the Legislature vote: they didn't even get a chance to vote on it. The state senators that Moroun has bought and paid for stopped the issue from being voted on by the the full Legislature. There are just so many lies coming out of the Moroun camp that the 3-part series from the Detroit Free Press, "Detroit-Windsor bridge battle: Separating out the truth," doesn't debunk all of them! It would be a book longer than War and Peace if it did.
Let me close with a truth that many people aren't even aware of: The Ambassador Bridge is owned by Matty Moroun, a billionaire who refuses to fix up or tear down the infamous train station where white suburban thrill-seekers injure themselves trespassing (yeah, it's their fault for trespassing, but Moroun bears a lot of responsibility in that matter, too). One more truth not many people are aware of (because most tourists take the tunnel rather than the bridge to go to Windsor from Detroit): the Ambassador Bridge, one of the most traveled international crossings, is in serious need of repairs, and not just the bandages Scrooge Moroun allows every now and then.
Here is the truth about the Legislature vote: they didn't even get a chance to vote on it. The state senators that Moroun has bought and paid for stopped the issue from being voted on by the the full Legislature. There are just so many lies coming out of the Moroun camp that the 3-part series from the Detroit Free Press, "Detroit-Windsor bridge battle: Separating out the truth," doesn't debunk all of them! It would be a book longer than War and Peace if it did.
Let me close with a truth that many people aren't even aware of: The Ambassador Bridge is owned by Matty Moroun, a billionaire who refuses to fix up or tear down the infamous train station where white suburban thrill-seekers injure themselves trespassing (yeah, it's their fault for trespassing, but Moroun bears a lot of responsibility in that matter, too). One more truth not many people are aware of (because most tourists take the tunnel rather than the bridge to go to Windsor from Detroit): the Ambassador Bridge, one of the most traveled international crossings, is in serious need of repairs, and not just the bandages Scrooge Moroun allows every now and then.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
You ARE a photographer, though maybe not a good one
Outside of working hours, I don't often talk about my day job running a photography department at a midcap company. Some of my colleagues at my day job enjoy looking at YouAreNotAPhotographer.com, a website that calls out photography "impostors" with the same zeal some other people go after Navy SEAL impostors, or Medal of Honor impostors. I think that website's scorn is misplaced. It's not just because there is a big difference between someone who pretends to be a Navy SEAL and someone who thinks that some bland photo will lead to a profitable photography business.
Here's where I'm coming from: I see that in the corporate world, photographers are not appreciated. Executive types see photographers as essentially servants with cameras, while bean counters think their company's photographic needs can be met through a combination of stock photos grabbed from the Web and shots by random employees using point-and-shoot cameras. A lot of upgrades to Adobe software present for me an exercise in picking my battles: minor versions, no; but major versions are not automatic, and I might not always get the Extended version.
It's not much better in the art world: it's impressive that you can put oil to canvas and make it look like something, but don't assume that photography is just pointing a camera and pressing the shutter. All the jokes about lawyers in the world don't change the fact that lawyers are held in high esteem, and photographers are really not.
So... where is the prestige in being a photographer? Why should it bother me that some dumb schmuck with a camera thinks he's a professional photographer? Are "fauxtographers" really to blame when an old pro is laid off, or when a new pro lowers his already low expectations for income? No, the real villain here is a corporate culture that puts profits before people.
Just so we're clear, I am occasionally amused by what I see on YouAreNotAPhotographer.com. But those people don't deserve the hatred of professionals. And lastly, some definitions to keep in mind here:
Here's where I'm coming from: I see that in the corporate world, photographers are not appreciated. Executive types see photographers as essentially servants with cameras, while bean counters think their company's photographic needs can be met through a combination of stock photos grabbed from the Web and shots by random employees using point-and-shoot cameras. A lot of upgrades to Adobe software present for me an exercise in picking my battles: minor versions, no; but major versions are not automatic, and I might not always get the Extended version.
It's not much better in the art world: it's impressive that you can put oil to canvas and make it look like something, but don't assume that photography is just pointing a camera and pressing the shutter. All the jokes about lawyers in the world don't change the fact that lawyers are held in high esteem, and photographers are really not.
So... where is the prestige in being a photographer? Why should it bother me that some dumb schmuck with a camera thinks he's a professional photographer? Are "fauxtographers" really to blame when an old pro is laid off, or when a new pro lowers his already low expectations for income? No, the real villain here is a corporate culture that puts profits before people.
Just so we're clear, I am occasionally amused by what I see on YouAreNotAPhotographer.com. But those people don't deserve the hatred of professionals. And lastly, some definitions to keep in mind here:
- A photographer is anyone who has ever used a camera to take a picture.
- A professional photographer is anyone who gets paid to take photographs.
Friday, January 20, 2012
When to speak your native language
The 2003 film Shanghai Knights is a worthy sequel to Shanghai Noon. This even though the cleverly choreographed action sequences do start to feel a little routine, and it gradually gets very tiresome to see all the Forrest Gump-style manufactured prescience. But the nit I am picking here today concerns the matter of when characters speak their native language (and consequently there are subtitles on the screen).
When Roy (Owen Wilson) meets Chon Wang's sister Lin (Fann Wong) in a London prison, she and Wang (Jackie Chan) exchange a few words in Chinese, prompting Roy to practically command that they don't talk about him in their native tongue. Out of courtesy, they don't talk about him in Chinese any further, regardless of whether or not he is present.
Roy falls in love with Lin and asks Wang to put in a good word for him. Wang talks to Lin in private, and for no good reason, they talk about Roy in English, not Chinese! They might not know that Roy is eavesdropping (and it does seem somewhat improbable that he can hear anything clearly), but if they suspect it, would it not make sense for them to have this conversation in Chinese?
Also, how exactly is it that Lin and Wang learned English? For someone who hasn't been in an English-speaking country all that long, Lin seems to have a stronger command of the English language than her brother who has spent so much time in the American West.
Of course I do know the reason that that particular conversation is in English rather than Chinese: screenwriter's necessity. The screenwriters wanted a reason for Roy to get mad at Wang over something overheard, to parallel Wang getting mad at Roy over something overheard in the first movie. Dialogue like "Loy悪男LoyBaloney非常不誠実" might just not have quite the same impact on Roy's ego—in fact, that would have allowed him to hear what he wanted to hear, and in any case Lin does seem to like Roy back.
When Roy (Owen Wilson) meets Chon Wang's sister Lin (Fann Wong) in a London prison, she and Wang (Jackie Chan) exchange a few words in Chinese, prompting Roy to practically command that they don't talk about him in their native tongue. Out of courtesy, they don't talk about him in Chinese any further, regardless of whether or not he is present.
Roy falls in love with Lin and asks Wang to put in a good word for him. Wang talks to Lin in private, and for no good reason, they talk about Roy in English, not Chinese! They might not know that Roy is eavesdropping (and it does seem somewhat improbable that he can hear anything clearly), but if they suspect it, would it not make sense for them to have this conversation in Chinese?
Also, how exactly is it that Lin and Wang learned English? For someone who hasn't been in an English-speaking country all that long, Lin seems to have a stronger command of the English language than her brother who has spent so much time in the American West.
Of course I do know the reason that that particular conversation is in English rather than Chinese: screenwriter's necessity. The screenwriters wanted a reason for Roy to get mad at Wang over something overheard, to parallel Wang getting mad at Roy over something overheard in the first movie. Dialogue like "Loy悪男LoyBaloney非常不誠実" might just not have quite the same impact on Roy's ego—in fact, that would have allowed him to hear what he wanted to hear, and in any case Lin does seem to like Roy back.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Respecting the roll and getting more cash
I would like to acknowledge Jay Leno's brilliant deconstruction of the Cottonelle "Respect the Roll" ad campaign on TV. Those ads are practically begging to be nitpicked and lampooned, but Jay Leno has beat me to the punch. The one he chose to focus on is one in which an elderly black couple spies on the bathroom of some neighbors across the street. Why are they spying on their neighbors, why does the neighbors' house have the toilet facing a window, and most importantly of all, how does it show "respect" to a roll of toilet paper to cover it up prior to using it for its ultimate purpose and denouement?
Another ad campaign that deserves a similar treatment is Capital One's "more cash" ad campaign with Jimmy Fallon. Everyone likes more cash, with the exception of a grumpy little baby, who expresses wordlessly how most grown-ups feel about Jimmy Fallon. It's bad enough we make our infant children compete in beauty pageants, now we must expose them to the evil, corrupting power of money as early as possible? But more importantly, and why hasn't this occurred to anyone else:
If you really want more cash, cancel your credit cards! And maybe get rid of your debit cards, too.
So we are supposed to feel grateful that the credit card companies, out of the exorbitant interest rates and fees that they charge us, return to us a tiny, trickling bit of that in the form of what is euphemistically called "cash rewards"? If you are not too ensnared in credit card debt, it is time to pay them all off, cancel them, and keep more of your hard-earned cash where you want it: in your wallet. What exactly have the credit card companies done that they deserve any cut of our hard-earned paychecks? Exactly!
Another ad campaign that deserves a similar treatment is Capital One's "more cash" ad campaign with Jimmy Fallon. Everyone likes more cash, with the exception of a grumpy little baby, who expresses wordlessly how most grown-ups feel about Jimmy Fallon. It's bad enough we make our infant children compete in beauty pageants, now we must expose them to the evil, corrupting power of money as early as possible? But more importantly, and why hasn't this occurred to anyone else:
If you really want more cash, cancel your credit cards! And maybe get rid of your debit cards, too.
So we are supposed to feel grateful that the credit card companies, out of the exorbitant interest rates and fees that they charge us, return to us a tiny, trickling bit of that in the form of what is euphemistically called "cash rewards"? If you are not too ensnared in credit card debt, it is time to pay them all off, cancel them, and keep more of your hard-earned cash where you want it: in your wallet. What exactly have the credit card companies done that they deserve any cut of our hard-earned paychecks? Exactly!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)