Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Passion Review

So, after it being out for nearly 6 weeks, I finally saw the Passion last night. I stopped by the theater for the 4:35 show after work. Surprisingly enough, I was not the only one in the theater. By the time the movie started, there were almost 15 people in. Fortunately, none of them were under the age of 18.

So, did I like it? Well, yes and no. Yes, in the fact that it is quite moving and personifies the torment inflicted. No in the sense that the movie lost some of its believability with the violence and I questioned some of the historical accuracy of some aspects of the movie.

My biggest complaint I would think is that I have a hard time believing that Jesus would not have collapsed and simply bled to death halfway through the ordeal as Gibson portrays it. In Mark, when Joseph of Arimathea comes to Pilate to ask for the body, Pilate seems surprised that Jesus is deal already. In Gibson's portrayal, I don't think Pilate would have been shocked if Jesus rolled over and died after 10 minutes of cross carrying.

That is my second complaint. As Jesus is led away to Golgotha, the two thieves are marched with him. The two thieves are only lashed to the crossbars. Jesus has to carry the crossbar and support pole. Why the double standard? It just doesn't make much sense to me.

My third complaint is regarding the acting of the men playing the Roman soldiers. I thought the leads did very well but the soldiers were just too over the top. Their breakdown fits of laughter and cruelty seemed too jovial and too forced. I don't deny that the soldiers would have been very cruel, especially if they were recruited from the surrounding provinces and not from Rome proper as has been theorized. But it seemed far too forced for me.

My fourth and final point comes from the fact that I'm not Catholic and Mr. Gibson is very old school Catholic. There were a number of things that did not jive with any version of the story I've read or with my own attitude about things. Examples: Jesus' face is wiped by a woman while carrying the cross, leaving an imprint of his face in blood; Claudia Procula (Pilate's wife) comes out and gives Mary, mother of Jesus, towels to wipe up the blood from the scourging; Jesus and his disciples are sitting at a modern table and chairs during the last supper flashbacks; after Jesus dies, a Roman soldier pierces his heart with a spear on the right side, not the left. These are just some and they just seemed out of place to me.

Now, I will say the things I did like. The film was not anti-Semitic. There were many instances of Jews in support of Jesus throughout the film. Ciaphas is clearly the driver of the whole thing but even he is not made to be an extreme over the top villain. He has religious convictions and is fulfilling them (albeit misplacingly).

I enjoyed the flashbacks, especially the ones with his mother showing Jesus prior to his ministry. It gives one a reminder of the human side of him. Performing in Aramaic and Latin made the movie more real and quite enjoyable. It was easy to engross yourself in the historical aspect of the movie. Despite the gore, I did find the overall movie very moving and touching. It was a good reminder of what we are and the sacrifices God made for us.

Overall, I'd give the movie a B-. If you are Catholic, I'd pull it up to a B. Irregardless, I'd recommend it to anyone interested.

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Medical thoughts

Paper cuts suck. I didn't even realize I had one until I was peeling my orange. Then you get a little bit of citrus acid in the cut and it lets you know in a hurry that its there. Its at the base of my left index finger, palm side and like all paper cuts, its annoyingly painful. I asked my fellow coworkers if they knew where the first aid kit is. No one knows, which leads me to believe that we either don't have one or its in the private custody of either the secretary or the supply mistress. Since I'm not bleeding, I'll just wait until I get home. Still, annoying.

I was reading an article yesterday about how doctors can't quite figure out what is the "healthy" level of cholesterol. Some say that anything over 200 is bad, irregardless of the ratio. Others say it depends on how your HDL (good) stacks up against your LDL (bad). As a person who is going to have to worry about this someday, I would like an answer eventually. Last time I was checked, I had a good overall rating and my bad was ok. My good was low though so more fruit and veggies for me. But I carry a spare tire so the fat content will only go up.

The principle problem, in my opinion, lies not so much with the doctors but with the drug companies. Apparently Lipitor is one of the biggest drugs sold in the US with sales in the billions. When you have sales like these and the promotions that go along with them, I can imagine its beneficial to have some ambiguity in the system. If doctor A says your overall is okay but you need to lower your LDL and doctor B says your overall is too high, then all you hear is that something bad is happening and you should try to lower your cholesterol. Drugs are immediately recommended and its another hit to your wallet.

I've had some experience with this as I am mildly hypertense. I myself get far too uptight about things, plus I eat too much and don't get enough exercise. Ergo, my heart starts complaining. I was on medication for a while, but got off it when I was able to make some lifestyle changes that helped. It did open my eyes about how easy it is to go for the quick fix solution and not worry about changing other things that will do you good in the long run and not hit you in the wallet so bad. It just gives you a little perspective now and again.

Monday, March 29, 2004

Sports Recap

So the Final Four is set. I have three of the four teams: Oklahoma St., UConn, and Duke. My fourth team was Kentucky but I did have Georgia Tech in the Elite Eight and thought seriously about having them beat Kentucky in the match up. But at least both my finals teams are alive. I have UConn over Oklahoma St. in the final.

As far as Oklahoma St., I think that's a pretty good chance. No disrespect to Georgia Tech, but I think Oklahoma St. has fought through more and shown better resolve. They were the Big 12 regular season and tournament champion and you just have to give props to that.

As far as the other game, I'm in a toss up. Obviously I want UConn to win but I'm a little concerned. UConn has blown by opponents but they haven't faced anyone of high caliber yet. Duke had two close games with Illinois and Xavier. Both of them were scrappy teams and may have toughened Duke up enough to a point where they could just outmuscle UConn. With Okafor still suffering from his back and now a pinched nerve in his elbow, things are looking a little less definite.

In other sports news, the Frozen Four is also set. Thankfully Michigan was knocked out by Boston College. I'm not a Michigan fan in any way, especially in football and hockey. The biggest part was that Minnesota was upset by Minnesota-Duluth. So there will be no three-peat and some fresh excitement on the ice. Its just a shame that you can't watch any of the games until they reach the Frozen Four. I would have liked to have watched the Minnesota-Minn-Duluth game. Oh well. They other participants by the way are Denver and Maine. Records favor Maine, but with the contest is in Boston so I'd say BC is the favorite.

Baseball also starts this week. Time to go watch the Reds get their clocks cleaned. Really, there's a lot of expectations put on the NL Central this year. It'll be interesting to see if it lives up to the hype. But I'm going on record now, and we can check the archives when October rolls around, but I predict that there will not be a Boston-Chicago World Series. Its just a little too much of a pipe dream at this point. I just hope its not all Yankees, all the time.

Thursday, March 25, 2004

None of the Above

An interesting idea was floated today at work amidst the political discussions. What if when you went to the polls to vote, the ballot looked like this:

W. T. Kat (R)
P. Opus (D)
M. Bloom (I)
None of the Above

Then you also have a stipulation where if the "none of the above" option gets greater than 50% of the vote, new candidates would have to be offered.

I know, it wouldn't be practical quite like that, but I would like to see some form of this. It might give greater spur to lesser candidates and crack the lock the Republicans and Democrats have on the system. You might be able to set multiple elections. The first would have a broad field where you would narrow down the candidates to a manageable field, say 10 or so. Then you would have a second election where you pick from those and include the none of the above option. If "none of the above" wins, the numbers of the candidates are evaluated and the parties can decide to either field that candidate or pick a new one for a follow up election a few weeks later. If "none of the above" does not win, then you take the top three candidates and offer them in the general election.

Its not perfect and we'd have to play with it, but I think it would catch on. It might also get rid of the idea of voting for a third party candidate as throwing your vote away. Imagine the fear that would run through the ranks of the major parties. No longer would you have to vote for candidate B just because you don't want candidate A to win. You can say, I don't like either. Give me someone who actually shares my views. Elected officials might actually have to get things done as well if they want to stand a chance to be reelected.

Personally, in the upcoming election, I think "none of the above" would crush all candidates by a large margin.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Treason or Anti-War?

I've generally tried to stay away from politics in this blog, despite my being a political junkie, but I read something that made me think a bit. A blog I read fairly regularly is GlennReynolds.com. Reynolds calls himself a libertarian and has generally conservative views. He's no ally of Bush but he's far more critical of large Democratic figures and especially the mainstream news media. His most recent post covered the smattering of anti-war protests that went on over the weekend. He breaks it down with supporting blogs (such as L.T.Smash) about how many of the "anti-war" protests are skirting dangerously close to anti-American or treason.

So I wanted to think: what is anti-war and what is treason? Certainly, feeling that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq in the first place would be anti-war. Everyone has their own opinions and to say that we shouldn't have gone is quite fair to say. I also think that positions such as Mr. Kucinich have are quite fair, immediate and total pull out. It may not be wise, but no one needs wisdom to have an opinion. To turn the operation totally over to the UN or Europe is also a fair option.

I think it crosses the line when you actively support the other side. To support the killing of your own country's troops and hope that the other side wins does constitute treason in my mind. Treason is actively defined as "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies." Some might argue that holding demonstrations is not directly acting to aid the enemy. I think the purpose of a protest is to attempt to change public opinion. To change public opinion to a point of total opposition of the government and in full support of its enemies, does constitute a violation of this tenant.

The problem is that for the last 30 years or so, we've been taught that if you oppose a conflict, its okay to root for the other side. Jane Fonda made it very popular with her well published exploits supporting North Vietnam, even to the detriment of US PoWs (see the war experiences of Sen. McCain for further detail). Now, mainstream media sees opposition to the war and active support of the opponent as one and the same. So you push the envelope a little bit more and a little bit more.

Now, am I saying that we should sweep down and arrest all these people for treason? No. Never give any person or organization a chance to martyr themselves for an audience. I do think though that people should look very closely at what a person stands for before you buy into their philosophy. Too many fringe groups (left and right) get lumped into very general reporting. Watch what a person is saying and make sure you have all the facts when you make up your own mind.

Monday, March 22, 2004

Weekend Fallout

I was not immune from the fallout of this weekend. But, unlike other people I work with and am close to, I didn't get skinned as bad. I did have Kentucky in the Final Four, but I did not have them winning. I still have three teams in the Final Four, both of my finals teams and the champion still intact. So, to keep my bracket going, I need to root for Duke, UConn, and Oklahoma St.

But, if we choose to forgo the brackets and just root for teams we like, how cool would it be if Illinois knocked off Duke? Its not going to happen, but it would be neat to think about. Or, what if St. Joe, the one #1 that everyone was picking not to make it, is the only #1 to make it to the Final Four? This is also a possibility but rather rare as St. Joe still has to fight through Wake Forrest and either Pittsburgh or Oklahoma St. With they're lack of rebounding, its a little farfetched. But still cool to think about.

In other news, the soon to be Mrs. X and I made good progress over the weekend concerning wedding stuff. We locked down the flowers, cake, and tuxedos. We also made good progress towards picking out the wedding rings and got some more information on where we think we'll be holding the rehearsal dinner. Mrs. X is also meeting with the invitation person today. So I'm going to be considerably poorer at the end of the week, but good progress is worth that.

Friday, March 19, 2004

9/11 - Sponsered by Ford - Built Ford Tough

So there's been some discussion about Bush using the 9/11 footage in his campaign ads. Having seen it, (living in a battleground state) I don't think its that bad. Its quick and tastefully done. I also have very little qualms about the President using a tragedy as a rallying cry (FDR and Pearl Harbor) so long as its tasteful and appropriate. If Bush I had used Pan Am 103 in a campaign ad, I think he would have been stoned to death within minutes.

But this got me thinking about another comment I had made in an earlier post about tragedy as a backdrop for movies. Two of the most recent big budget movies have centered on tragic romances set in a horrible backdrop. Titanic was hailed as a great movie (despite the fact that the dialog was about as piss poor as I have ever heard) and it went on to win 11 Oscars. People came to their senses a little bit sooner when Pearl Harbor came around. It was generally regarded as a bomb although it made back its production costs.

We must also remember our penchant for "made for TV" movies of personal tragedies: the Peterson murder case, the Branch-Davidian fiasco, Tanya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch of others. These are generally a bit more lowbrow and very low budget. They feed sensationalism and then die a quick death.

But, given what we have already done, how long will it be before some filmmaker decides it would be a good idea to create a tragic romance surrounding either Oklahoma City or 9/11? Think about it. We have a nice story build up where the couple has this happy getting together. Maybe the woman ends a "no-love" romance with someone involved in the tragedy (the financier of the attacks) and then they happily set about they're day. Then, the terror attack happens. One of them is trapped on the floors above the impact zone. The other tries to get there to rescue them but he/she is pulled by the firefighters right before collapse. Later he/she finds a special token among the rubble - end of movie. If you feel like throwing up, I congratulate you, you're human. Which is better than most of Hollywood. Give us a little time. I'm sure someone is already working on a script to suit this little story. People will call it a great memorial to the victims and when it gets aired on TV, you can have it broken up every 20 minutes by reminders to buy Ford, Campbells, or Huggies.

You are free to mock me if you like, but I think it will happen. I'm just cynical like that.

Thursday, March 18, 2004

Working Distractions

Its amazing the variety of subjects you can get into so you can talk to people and put off doing work. A good list of people at various work locations and what we tend to talk about:
Bob (CT) - Anime and Japanese culture
Mike M (CT) - Physics and British Comedy
Joe (CT) - Sports
Lance (CT) - Sports and social commentary
Beth (CT) - Sushi and localized pop culture
Andres (OH) - Religion
Brian (OH) - Sports, Religion, local culture
Tracy (OH) - Culinary and domestic issues
Paul (OH) - Military strategy, historical issues
Vince (OH) - Shakespeare and British historical literature

With all this, you wonder how I get any kind of work done. But the key is to not allow yourself to get lulled into conversation when you're in the middle of a good working vibe. Of course if you feel bored and don't want to work, its very easy to find someone to talk to.

Example: Vince loaned me his copy of Titus, a mid-90's dramatization of Shakespeare's play Titus Andronicus. Very brutal, very nasty play. One of Shakespeare's first and its fairly obvious that its not his best work. But we were discussing that and just got to discussing our opinions of other treatments. He tends to like the more modern takes of the plays ( early 90's Richard III is a good example). I like some of these but I appreciate the way the story is told no matter what context its in. I like Hamlet while Vince does not, but I prefer the Mel Gibson version to Kenneth Brannagh's. Not because of the setting so much as because of the interaction. Gibson and his supporting cast seem to grasp the more real aspect of the play rather that getting swept up with the idea that they are doing HAMLET as Brannagh did. But this is an aside. I'm not posting this time as a critique on either Shakespeare or its various adaptations. I'll save that for another post.

But the tourney starts today so I don't doubt I'll have plenty of opportunity for avoiding work if I so choose.

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Columbus Sniper Nabbed?

So they finally caught the man they believe may be the Columbus sniper. Word coming out around the city is that the suspect is a couple cards short of a full deck. Now I ask you, how does a man who may be a bit deficient in mental capacity buy up to five 9mm style handguns? His parents may be involved. Apparently his parents had access to his gun collection because they may have cut him off. His father certainly turned over all the remaining guns and ballistics managed to match one of the guns.

So, how much did they know and when did they know it? Nothing is confirmed, but rumor swirling about the office is that sometime during the spree, his family figured it out that it was him. Then someone fingered him and his family tried to talk him into giving himself up. He instead flees to Vegas and is caught.

In all likelihood, he'll get time in a mental facility for whatever his problem is and will never spend any real time in jail. But you never know. Either way, it should make for some entertaining court drama. I'm sure I'll sick of it long before its over. But at least I won't have to watch the overpass bridges as closely when I'm driving north next time.

Sunday, March 14, 2004

Bracketology

They haven't announced the brackets yet. I think they're still working on the womens (GO UCONN). So I have time to gripe about the choices before I can actually see them.

Up until about 2 weeks ago, I was ready to give it all to Stanford or Duke, I wasn't sure about the final game yet. Now, I have no idea in heck. Yes, Stanford won the Pac-10 but it took a lot of luck in that final win over Washington, who might have been legitamately tired after they're fight with Arizona. Then, Maryland (who was ranked 6th in the ACC) upsets Duke to earn the nod, and possibly take away Duke's number 1 standing.

So who do we go for? St. Joe? They lost to Xavier (who won the A-10) and they still can't rebound. Stanford? Maybe, but they better have a powderpuff way to the Final Four because they can't handle getting slapped around. Duke? They're still the favorite, but they've shown none of the domination that you expect from them. I'm not buying yet. UConn? I'd like to see UConn win and I think that Okafor does give them that chance, but his health has been sketchy. I'll have to see who they have to go through. Kentucky? Maybe, Tubby's team has been a sleeper and they just won the SEC championship. I'll keep my eye out. Pittsburgh? Mississippi St.? Okhlahoma St.? Wisconsin? All possiblities, all having serious flaws to counter their attributes.

So, more than any other year that I've been playing brackets, I think this year's champion is dependant on the road. Who they match up against, who they get on a bad day, etc. Last year I picked Kentucky but some concilation when I put Syracuse in the final game. We have no Kentucky's this year and more than one Syracuse. It should be interesting.

Friday, March 12, 2004

Flu Sucks

In the words of the Emperor Augustus, shortly before he was poisoned to death by his wife Livia, "I feel sick." Today was actually supposed to be a good day. I was wrapping up a project at work, a group of us were going to leave early and see "The Passion" together, then I was going to go out and have seafood. Instead, I woke up with my head being used for an anvil, my throat clogged as bad as my nose, and a general feeling like I had just been run over by a cement mixer. Life's just not fair sometimes. Oh well, I'll do what I can to keep you informed of my general decline. If I've stopped posting for a week, you can assume I'm dead and delete this page from your bookmarks. ;)

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

McClellan Dies

I've been reading Shelby Foote's history of the Civil War. I'm still fairly early in the book, only just starting the Peninsular Campaign, but as I'm fairly familiar with the broad strokes of the war, its given me some time to think of alternate scenarios. Most people like to plan the war based on Lee's battle plan note being lost prior to the battle of Antietem. Of course, this leads to Southern victory and independence.

But I would like to go back to the point at the start of 1862. McClellan had trained the Army of the Potomac well but was too scared to used it, relying heavily on poor intelligence that vastly overrated Confederate strength. In February, he is struck down with typhoid fever, and takes nearly three weeks to recover. But what would have happened if McClellan had died? Prior to McClellan recovering, Lincoln had discussed invasion plans with the former head of the army, General McDowell. McDowell headed one of McClellan's corps and despite his defeat at the battle of Manassas, he was probably the best suited for the job. McClellan had not shared his plans about heading up the James peninsula with anyone by this point, so it stands that once a suitable mourning period was observed (coinciding with the roads south drying), McDowell would have moved his army south. Stonewall Jackson was operating a small army in the Shenandoah that would have drained some of McDowell's resources, but he probably still would have had around 100,000 men at his disposal. Johnston had backed up to Fredericksburg at this point. He might have stood and waited, but historical papers indicate that he was thinking about consolidating his lines further in front of Richmond. With General Burnside in North Carolina and threatening Norfolk, its probable that Johnston would not have been able to heavily call on either armies in the southeastern portion of Virginia (around 10,000 men each). So he would have faced McDowell, outnumbered close to 3:1. In all likelihood, Johnston would have lost the battle and possibly Richmond. Lee might have assumed command at this point, but McDowell would not have been bullied like McClellan was. With his resources dwindling Lee might have been forced to surrender or go to guerilla warfare. Either way, the war in the east might have ended in 1862 if one man had died early.

Monday, March 08, 2004

Gems

What is it about gemstones that grabs the attention? My fiancee loves her diamond ring simply because its very sparkly. I can see how that would be an attraction. I myself have an affection for sapphires, despite the fact that neither of us, or anyone in our immediate family, was born in September. I don't know, there's just something that really grabs me. I love blue and especially dark blues. Emeralds are also gems that grab my attention. At least I have good reason to pursue emeralds as my fiancee was born in May.

The real problem is pacing yourself so that you don't go after all the gems in one big blow. Its much nicer to buy them at random times and give them as gifts at special occations. Of course, you also have to find reasons for your fiancee to wear jewelry so that involves going to nice fancy parties and such. So that's even more money down the tube. Ah, to be rich.

Thursday, March 04, 2004

Mystery Theme CD

You know, the only time I've ever sent in a request for information from a company was to PBS. I sent off an e-mail to ask if there had been any discussion of a compilation CD of the various Mystery themes. For those of you unaware, Mystery is a PBS program dealing with stories about various detective dramas. The productions are usually British so you won't find them as easily here in the US. Some of the most common ones are the Jeremy Brett versions of Sherlock Holmes, Inspector Morse, and various Agatha Christie mysteries (Poirot and Miss Marple being the most common of those).

Anyway, I got a response back from PBS saying that they were not working on it at that time. I imagine it might be a little difficult depending on the licencing agreements that PBS has to work out with the BBC. So, looks like it won't happen anytime in the near future.

This is why I've bantered about the idea for the last few months of trying to build the CD myself. I have copies of the Mystery theme, Sherlock Holmes, Inspector Morse, Miss Marple, Cadfael, and Poirot. I know what the source is for Adam Daughlish and a couple of other minor ones that were on. Its just a question of getting a hold of them. Then its up to me to either get a CD burner myself or enlist the aid of someone like my sister and brother-in-law who do have a burner. We shall see.

Tuesday, March 02, 2004

Biblical Chronology

Some of the theories you find when you are doing research are absolutely fascinating. I recently bought myself a copy of Jesus of Nazareth on DVD. While watching it, I was thumbing through my Bible, following along. While I was doing that, I ran across two passages in Luke that gave me pause. Luke 3:1 states that John the Baptist began his ministry in the 15th year of the Emperor Tiberius (generally held to be AD 29). Luke 3:23 states that Jesus was about 30 when he began his ministry. This created a problem in my mind. The generally held death date of Herod the Great is 4 BC and Jesus had to have been born at least 2 years prior to Herod's death (maybe longer), which would put it no later than between 7 and 6 BC. If this is true, then Jesus would have to have been much older than 30 when he started his ministry.

To clear this question, I wanted to confirm Herod's death date so I searched on Google. What I found was this very interesting web site and ebook proposing a theory that would resolve the issue. The site is New Testament Chronology and the author used NASA software about solar and lunar eclipses, in conjunction with historical writings from the Greeks, Romans, and Chinese to correct various dates.

The first portion holds that there is a 4 to 5 year mistake when it comes to dating the Augustan era and prior time periods. For this the author makes use of several astronomical sources and supporting writings. An example is that Augustus did not die in AD 14 but in AD 10 instead. Another point using this astronomical data has Julius Caesar being murdered in 49 BC as opposed to the accepted 44 BC.

The second portion of the theory has that the emperor Tiberius noted the beginning of his reign from the time of his adoption by Augustus and not the death of Augustus. If we hold this true, the reign of Tiberius would be counted beginning in AD 4 which would then be pushed back to AD 1 by the first part of the theory.

Coupling these two theories with other writings, the author pushes the death of Herod the Great back to 8 BC and the birth of Jesus to 15 BC. Then using the revised reign of Tiberius, his 15th year would be in fact his 4th or 5th year of solo rule, or about AD 14-15. Thus, Jesus would now be about 30 years old, satisfying all the requirements. This would then put the death and resurrection of Jesus around AD 19.

I intend to look much more closely at this theory and work it into my story if possible. It seems to hold water and I can't wait to see what else I can make of it.

Outsourcing Pt. 2

Okay. Now that we have the talk about the Oscars out of the way, we can move back to the outsourcing of jobs. I must be perfectly frank when I tell you that manufacturing jobs are just not going to come back. The damage is already done. It just costs too much to pay a US worker and if you want to maintain quality, you drive costs even higher. This will continue until there are no poor countries desperate for low wage jobs in the world. That's not happening anytime soon. One of the hotbutton issues right now is that China is deliberately undervaluing its currency to keep its exports high and its imports low, undercutting the market. People cry foul but this is an agressive form of Capitalism. The Chinese play hardball. They will let their currency up at some point, but only until they have between 90-100% market share. Then they can dictate whatever price they want. You might be able to worm the Chinese out, but only if you used the same tactics and were prepared to put up some nasty shortages of stuff that the Chinese already have a lock on. I don't see that happening.

White collar job loss can be slowed, but its going to take a major disaster to do it. Management doesn't care about safety until it reaches up and bites them (see Sioux City airport crash). They care about costs. If they can continue to farm out the work to Poland or India, where the workers have lots of PhDs but no experience, then there is very little that can be done to stop them. It won't be until you get an airline engine that was fully designed by Indians explode due to shody design, that you'll see any backlash.

There have been some attempts to legislate the jobs to stay in the US, but legislatures are reluctant to put them in place because of the backlash from the companies. Instead of keeping jobs, the company will just pull out entirely from that state and relocate elsewhere. There will still be a demand for their product and they can just ship it in via other channels.

In the long term, the US must move towards becoming a service economy. Jobs that depend only on either a rising or a stable population, which we have. We are a nation of mass consumers and service sector jobs are the only ones that aren't going away anytime soon. Some people won't like it becuase the jobs out there are the ones being done by illegal aliens or Hispanic immigrants who ship most of their money back to their country of origin. But that's the only solution I can see at the moment.

Monday, March 01, 2004

Oscar Recap

I know that in my last post I promised I'd tackle part 2 of the outsourcing of jobs. However, I was away all weekend and we just had the Oscars. So I'm going to save that for my next post and give you my Oscar impressions.

I must start off with a pat on the back for myself. In all the Oscars given out last night, I correctly picked all but 5 of them. I even got things like best foreign film and best documentary short right. My biggest gaff was not picking RotK for Best Adapted Screenplay. I felt at the time, that they would give the nod to Mystic River since there had been much heralding about that book. But I did get Original Screenplay, all the acting, director and picture awards right. Now, some of that is due to the quickness of this year's Oscars. When you don't have as much turnaround time, its a lot harder to work up buzz for little indy pictures (think Adrian Brody or Halle Berry). But I was also right three years ago when FotR was first nominated. I said it wouldn't win then, but that RotK would. Now I'm right and can do the happy dance.

I also think that Will Ferril and Jack Black should be invited back to sing the "You're Boring" song every year. I was almost in tears I was laughing so hard at that. I thought they should be getting the Oscar for Best Song. I'm happy that Lennox won, though based on her performance, I was glad I didn't have any video to go with my copy of the song. Very intense eyes and I thought she was going to swallow the mike at a couple points. Second best performance went to "Kiss at the End of the Rainbow." Very funny and touching performance.

I can't really say anything about the speeches. I generally don't like them so I would flip to other channels during them and come back when they were done. I got pretty good. So I had a fun time also watching "Dirty Harry", "Patton", and "I Love the 80's Strikes Back: 1985." Given that I did catch a moment of Charlize Theron thanking her lawyer, I don't feel that I missed anything.

Billy Crystal was funny. I honestly think I enjoyed Steve Martin a little more last year but it was pretty good. His songs were funny, especially the "Old Man Eastwood" bit. I also liked the individual tributes to Bob Hope and Katherine Hepburn, but I was a little disappointed in the Bob Hope one. He did do a little more that hosting the Oscars. I would have liked to have seen a least a clip or two from some of the movies he did. It seemed a bit shallow to only denote his hosting of the show during the Oscars. But that's just me.

One more thing on RotK. People like to talk about how RotK is now tied with the Boat Movie and Ben-Hur for most wins. I would like to remind everyone that there were fewer categories when Ben-Hur won and it had to flex muscle in the acting categories which is something that The Boat Movie and RotK did not do. I personally feel that RotK was snubbed in acting nominations while The Boat Movie didn't deserve the two it did get as the acting was a bit melodramatic for my tastes. So, although they are tied, I would still rate them as Ben-Hur #1, RotK #2, and Titanic #3 and I would shove The Boat Movie lower if I could.

I'm going to stop now, but in a later post, I'll address my feelings on using great tragedies as backdrops for romance movies and the countdown for a 9/11 movie.