Help Hockey to Survive as a Sport

2004.07.23

I received this in an email yesterday, and thought it was clever enough and funny enough to warrant posting it:

To All,

2nd Term To Do List: Iran

2004.07.21

Here we go again: US probes possible Iran links to 9/11

After Bush's successful disinformation campaign managed to convince a majority of Americans that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, or were at least helped by Iraqis, he's ready to launch stage two. Assuming John Kerry fumbles the election ball later this year and Bush is reelected, look forward to an increasing amount of American news coverage on Iran's involvement with the 9/11 attacks.

Will Bush really go after Iran the same way he has gone after Iraq? I don't think so. It's almost certain that it would be a solo job with the advertised reasons for attacking Iraq now debunked. Secondly, I don't think he would be able to convince even the Americans that it would be a good idea.

It's all quite ridiculous anyhow. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Bin Laden and most of his cohorts are Saudis. Even if it were a good idea to bomb another Middle Eastern country, it should be Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 commission has found that eight to ten of the hijackers passed through Iran. Well, woop dee do! Glad to see we're still coming to logical conclusions down there! Here's one for ya: I bet ALL of the hijackers passed through Saudi Arabia, probably several times, but you won't find that information in the CNN article. Of course, you'll never see America go after Saudi Arabia, because they're the "good guys". Saudi Arabia is one of America's closest buddies and pals, even more so than Canada, despite the fact that Canada provides infinitely more oil and electrical energy, not to mention other natural resources, than Saudi Arabia will ever be capable of.

Go figure.

DVD Life

2004.07.20

Since CDs and DVDs were brought onto the market, there has been a huge amount of debate surrounding their life span. How long does a DVD last? Properly cared for, they should be able to last about a hundred years, in theory. In practice however, substandard manufacturing combined with poor storage and handling by users can shorten that life to less than one year. Part of me wishes that DVDs had been released as cartridges, with the disk locked away from people's carelessness in a plastic container. This wouldn't have solved the manufacturing problem, but at least people wouldn't be ruining their disks by scratching or rubbing them.

In truth however, there aren't any alternatives to the DVD format. HD-DVD and Blue-Ray are still a few years away, and as much as Bill Gates would like to think that media-on-demand is a reality, that sort of system is at least ten to twenty years away. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the idea in the first place. Do we really want to be renting our culture? I like the idea of owning a film; of having a copy in my home which is mine. On the other hand, all of those DVDs and games take up space on shelves, and the idea of accessing them all from a giant database somewhere and paying a dollar each time I do it is appealing.

In either case, people who warn us that DVD is already obsolete are clearly living in a fantasy world which is far ahead of the curve. I plan on buying DVDs for many more years, and though the format and capacity may change, I imagine they'll continue to look mostly the same. In fact, I imagine future hardware will remain DVD compatible for at least another 20 years, perhaps more. Is DVD obsolete? Not by a long shot.

The UN is ridiculous

2004.07.14

So, the UN, summoning their nearly bottomless supply of wisdom, has decided to get rid of spam within two years.

AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, the UN isn't even capable of agreeing on what constitutes genocide, and they're going to get rid of Internet spam? Why do we even put up with this shit? In my own personal estimation, exaggerated for effect, at least 70% of the UN is completely and utterly useless. I have absolutely no idea why anyone listens to anything they say.

The UN is a perfect example of why Star Trek's "United Federation of Planets" or Babylon 5's "Interstellar Alliance" are total fantasies. I'd be surprised if we ever manage to govern our own planet properly, but I just can't see any kind of multi-planet government working so long as Humans are involved. Of course, maybe they will be able to function in the same way that the UN does today. The amount of bureaucracy will be so immense and imposing, that nothing will ever get done, and smaller governments and individual citizens will go on doing whatever they wish, as if the bureaucracy didn't exist at all!

Spiderman 2

2004.07.12

I went to see "Spiderman 2" on opening night, immediately after a dismal hockey game. Thankfully, the movie cheered me up, even if it wasn't quite was I was expecting.

I'll get right to the bad stuff, since it won't take long. "Spiderman 2" acts a lot more like a comic book film than the first one, and in some ways, doesn't treat itself quite as seriously. Dr. Octopus' fusion reactor creates miniature suns, complete with sun spots and solar flares. Also, last time I checked, a star, miniature or not, cannot be cooled by water.

Dr. Octopus' himself, while a super villain, is not supposed to possess super strength or resiliency outside of his mechanical tentacles. However, on several occasions, Spiderman throws Doc Ock through walls or into cars, and even punches him in the face several times, yet Octavius is able to withstand the onslaught. Spiderman's super strength should mean a punch to a normal Human's face should either explode their skull or decapitate them, unless Spidey pulls his punches, which I find hard to believe. In the comic or cartoon version, Doc Ock uses his tentacles to keep Spiderman at bay, since any damage inflicted on his person would most likely be fatal.

Finally, "Spiderman 2" is plagued with a problem that the original 1960s cartoon series faced: web slinging below nothing. On several occasions Spidey shoots webs up to buildings or structures which logic states should not be there. Granted, they're out of frame, and I could use my imagination or call upon my super powered ability to suspend my disbelief, but since this didn't happen at all in the first film, I have to dock the second one for it.

Obviously, these three complains are minor ones, and when compared with the genius that is the majority of "Spiderman 2", don't really factor in. The movie is fantastic. The characters are better, the dialogue is better, the plot is better, and the visual effects are better. Almost everything in "Spiderman 2" is an improvement over the first film, which should be all you need to know. The film makes me wish more than ever for more Spiderman movies, of which we'll get at least one. I'm not sure if "Spiderman 2" is "the best superhero film ever made", but if Spiderman 3 continues the trend, and the battle between Peter Parker/Spiderman and Harry Osborne is as good as I hope, that film may very well deserve the label.

Fahrenheit 9/11

2004.07.09

One post for an entire week must be some sort of record for me. I've been very short on time at home this week, especially in the mornings, and I tend to put things like showers and breakfast before posting.

I went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" on Wednesday night, and walked out of the theatre reminded of some things, but that's about it. The movie doesn't make you bow to Michael Moore and repent your evil Republican sins, and I remain as disappointed as ever that this film is considered a documentary when it's really an editorial. I think it's important that the film industry make that distinction the same way that the print industry does, but that's an argument for another time.

Michael Moore gets a lot of things right in "Fahrenheit", but he also gets a lot of things wrong. The segments of the movie which cover the 2000 presidential election did an excellent job of showing Bush's theft of the presidency, and certainly reminded me of how angry I was at the time. Moore also takes a frightening look at Bush's extremely lazy work ethic prior to 9/11 as well as a humorous and frustrating look at the concept of Homeland security, airport security, and the Patriot Act. You're allowed to take four packs of matches and two butane lighters on an airplane, but five packs of matches is too many? Yes, this is how the US government is keeping us safe from terrorists in the skies. What's scarier are the number of Americans who think it's a good idea for them to surrender some of their liberties in order to "do their part" in the war on terror. In fact, on numerous occasions during "Fahrenheit", you simply cannot believe the words coming out of people's mouths, whether it's Bush speaking or a lowly tank gunner in Iraq.

What's less successful about Moore's film, at least for me, are the grandiose but "secret" ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royals, and between the Bush family and big American defense contractors. I half expected him to start blaming the whole thing on the Bush family's connections with the Illuminati. Here's a tip Michael: the public isn't going to buy into crazy conspiracy theories. Focus on other things.

As far as Iraq is concerned, Moore loses me. I was listening enthusiastically while he showed us the botched operations in Afghanistan, but he lost me as soon as he claimed that Iraq was "a nation which had never even harmed an American". He focuses entirely on the WMD case as the reason for going to war, which admittedly, was weak. Moore completely ignores Saddam Hussein and his methods of "government", instead painting Iraqis as free, productive, happy lovers of democracy under him. That is of course, until the US invaded their country and ruined their lives. From then on, Moore's focus grows ever narrower, refusing to look at the big picture and constantly zooming in until he spends nearly 30 minutes watching a military mother cry over her dead son. Yes, it's sad. Yes, it's unfortunate. However, one dead soldier and his grieving family is not the end all, be all of the war in Iraq. Will Iraq be better off in the long run? Of course not. Does it matter that Bush might be trying to reform the Middle East so we don't have to deal with Islamic militants 200 years from now? No, why would it? This war is obviously about oil and defense contractor profits, period.

All of this brings me to my biggest problem with "Fahrenheit", in fact my biggest problem with the far left in general. Not once, in the entire film, does Michael Moore suggest an alternative. What would Moore have done if he were president? We don't know. How should the Democrats fix the problems Bush has given us? Moore doesn't know. Michael Moore is a whiner; a person who screams and criticizes at the top of his lungs, but offers no productive advice or ideas. Simply saying that Bush has done a bad job is not enough to convince people. In order to change their minds, you have to make it obvious what a real president would have done, and how it would have made our lives better.

You should definitely go and see "Fahrenheit 9/11", especially if you're American. There's enough comedy to keep you laughing, and enough interesting truth to keep you listening despite the outlandish conspiracy theories. At the very least, it's funny to see an American president look like such a moron!