Archive for May, 2004
This post began as a comment to a post by Buckethead on the Ministry of Minor Perfidy, but it grew beyond my original intent and I decided to post it myself.
Buckethead pointed out the MSNBC.com article Can ‘Star Wars: Episode III’ be saved? and wrote
I’ll think you’ll find that hope is fading. Not that we had a lot of hope going into it. The first two movies as well could have been done by chimps.
I don’t disagree, but I’d like to explain my own position a bit.
I consider myself a pretty solid Star Wars fan. I was in second grade when the original came out, and I was a changed person by experiencing it. Although I’m solidly in the camp of those severely disappointed by the prequels, and I’m happily critical of the direction the franchise has taken, I usually try to temper my disdain.
The main reason? My kids love the new movies.
I think those of us who witnessed the classic movies first-hand unfairly expect the new movies to blow us away as adults the same way we were blown away as kids by the first movies. Although I wish this would be the case, to dismiss the new movies because they don’t have the impact on us that the originals did when we were all younger and the genre was undeveloped isn’t really fair.
I think that the new movies really ARE up to the standards of the earlier films in many ways. We just don’t have the personal attachment to the new ones. Star Trek fans generally love the classic episodes from the original series despite bad acting, writing, and special effects. There was a lot of good there, as well, of course, but it’s much easier to be bold when you’re breaking new ground. And your mistakes are more likely to be forgiven when you’re blazing a new trail.
The new Star Wars movies aren’t really breaking new ground. Despite the advanced effects, it’s really just more of the same in most ways, and we aren’t going to be sucked in like we were when we were ten years old. Real-looking spaceships and alien creatures aren’t anything new to the sophisticated tastes of today’s computer-savvy and media-saturated viewers.
Obviously, the writing is flat and the acting is subpar in the new films, and that’s not really forgivable. The cast of the new films should be stronger than the cast in the originals, but the actors seem lost. The point in the MSNBC article about Christopher Lee throwing himself into his roles in hack films is a good one. I personally suspect that the extensive use of computer-generated characters and sets has taken a lot away from the ability of the actors to portray their roles in a believable manner, but regardless of the reasons, the actors just aren’t delivering. The lines they are directed to speak don’t make their jobs any easier, either.
But look at Mark Hammill, the Ewok storyline, and the Jabba the Hutt puppet in the original movies. I just don’t see a lot of difference between the new movies and the old when comparing them objectively and logically. The problem is that those of us who waited so long for the new movies aren’t objective or logical about the old ones. We are very subjective and emotional in our judgment.
If the new movies had been made in the late 70s, we all would have been blown away by them. And today we’d be yawning over and complaining about giant walking tanks and a black-masked, one dimensional villain. To be honest, I think the true low spot in the Star Wars saga is The Return of the Jedi, and I’ve thought so for many years. Two-headed race announcers, Jar Jar Binks, and godawful professions of love while being wheeled out for public execution haven’t changed my mind about the disappointment of ROTJ one bit.
I’m not happy with these new films. Not at all. But my kids are.
And when they’re older, they’ll be disappointed by the films that are coming out and long for the good old days of Attack of the Clones. Maybe.
Results of Homicide Bomber Attack on Bradley – WARNING:Bloody
Note to suicide bombers: You probably won’t dent a Bradley, but you WILL make one hell of a mess. Now some poor private in the Sergeant’s doghouse is going to have to scrub this thing down. It’s just like Tet all over again.
Does that count as a kill for the Bradley crew? (Hat tip to Hell in a Handbasket)
UPDATE: Apparently this is an old story. Barking Moonbat has more pics on a post from early February, and they are extremely graphic. Use caution.
Also, commenter on Barking Moonbat notes:
The plan was 50% successful – the suicide bit worked.
They recovered the body. It’s in that pail over there.
SUBMARINES: The Chinese Threat (May 21, 2004 entry)
Last week I wrote about plans to possilby reduce the US Navy’s attack sub force and what this might mean, especially where the Chinese are concerned.
Today’s Strategy Page has a post about China’s plans to increase her sub force.
China has commissioned the first of a new class of Type 093 SSNs. These were built with help from Russia and France and are similar to the old Russian Victor III class SSNs. The 093s are quiet and modern in their equipment. By 2009, there will be at least three of them in service. More worrisome is the purchase of more Kilo class diesel-electric subs from Russia. China only has four Kilos (Type 035) now, but will have fifteen by 2009. These are very quiet boats, and use modern French and Russian electronics. And in 2009, three of the Kilos will have AIP (Air Independent Propulsion), which gives them long, silent, endurance underwater. China is still building its own diesel-electric subs, and are getting better at it. Buying ship construction technology from France and Russia, the Chinese submarine construction work force gets more skilled year by year. And all Chinese sub construction efforts are to build nuclear powered boats. Chinese submarine crews are getting a lot more time at sea, and China has bought modern torpedoes from Russia for all its subs.
Why is it that we’re always up against nations backed by Russia and France? They’re on our side. Right? Right? Come on, folks. We really should check with them before we decide what’s best for us. Right?
(That’s possibly the worst post title I’ve ever written.)
Here’s a nifty table based upon numbers in an MSNBC story. I added a column showing the increase and sorted by it:
Pretty silly, really, though I must give them credit for putting gasoline smack in the middle of the pack. Whoever puts together a table like this has total control of the message the table tells. Apparently, MSNBC has it in for the cucumber cartels.
UPDATE: I’d be curious to see the percentage of change in oil refining capability since 1984 compared to the percentage of change in cheese processing capability since 1984. If cheese processing capability has increased MORE than oil refining capability as seems likely, isn’t it a little fishy that the price of processed cheese has increased more than the price of refined oil?
UPDATE 2: The skyrocketing cheese prices could lead to some brutal ugliness.
Expended rocket launcher found near Atlanta tracks
A used, banged-up AT-4 rocket launcher was discovered near some railroad tracks. I’m surprised this isn’t getting more coverage. Airborne Combat Engineer writes
A dry-run test of how to sneak such weapons past the turnstiles and MARTA Police, perhaps?
MARTA is the Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. ACE discusses some grim possibilities for bad guys with rocket launchers involving Atlanta trains.
Is it possible that it fell off a train car loaded with waste from an Army base? This just isn’t the sort of junk that you find laying around. Not to sound alarmist, but this could be huge.
I’d suggest that the last thing the bad guys really want to do, however, is to piss off Americans. Most seem to have more-or-less “gotten over” 9/11 and aren’t interested in considering Iraq to be part of the War on Terror. Why would they want to mess with the current equilibrium?
Of course, why would they want to release the Nick Berg video?
Donald Sensing received this note:
Dan Abrams of “The Abram’s Report” on MSNBC tonight called the internet “The Sewer of History” for it’s dissemination of the Berg beheading video!
When journalists are calling people names, you know it’s getting pretty low. If Dan and the rest of the “Big Media” would have done their job with the Berg story, this mad rush online for info and video clips wouldn’t have happened.
How big was the internet rush for pictures of the prison abuse? It was barely a trickle. Was that because no one cared? Not at all. It was because you could get all the pictures you wanted in the newspapers, new shows, and major media websites.
Sure, some (even many) of those searching for the Nick Berg video are sickos or just morbidly curious. But the fact that the deluge occurred indicates that the story wasn’t available elsewhere.
Who’s to blame for that?
Mountain lion chased by dog, killed by Palo Alto police
For some reason, mountain lion stories always seem to catch my eye. This one was in residential Palo Alto and chased up a tree by a dog. Predictably
“I think it’s absolutely atrocious the way the police behaved because obviously the animal was not posing a threat to anyone,” said Alfredo Kuba, from the animal rights group In Defense of Animals.
They should have sent Mr. Kuba up the tree to bring it down, then. He could have changed his name to ‘Fetucini’ Alfredo Kuba.
I pointed out a different California mountain lion attack noted by ACE in January. He recommended packing a gun when venturing into wild animal territory. I guess that includes residential Palo Alto.
Remember, the Government of California webpage has some tips for you when you meet up with a mountain lion. They include:
- Don’t run from lion AND Don’t approach a lion. I guess you are supposed to move parallel to any mountain lions that you meet.
- Do not crouch down or bend over. Unless kissing your own ass good-bye, I guess.
- Do all you can do to appear larger. Basically, you’re screwed at this point — At least look like a man when you get taken out.
- Fight back if attacked. It’s only a matter of time before Alfredo and company gets that tip removed.
- Pray. This isn’t really in the list, of course — but it might have been until the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals got hold of it.
As I pointed out last time, the page notes
A hiker in Southern California used a rock to fend off a mountain lion that was attacking his son. Others have fought back successfully with sticks, caps, jackets, garden tools and their bare hands.
Rocks, sticks, jackets. As I said in January, that’s not fighting back. That’s desperation. Carry a gun, friend.
Unfair to use a gun on a mountain lion? Exactly.
My six-year-old daughter was digging through a toy box, tossing stuff all over the floor. I told her to stop making a mess but she didn’t give up her search for whatever it was she was after. Finally, she pulled an old cell phone triumphantly out. I gave it to the kids to play with, since it’s totally worthless.
“And I have my credit cards,” she said, showing me some of those sample cards you get in the junk mail offers. She ran off to make some “calls”.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Someone this morning told me that “Unless gas is $1.30 there’s no way I’m voting for Bush.”
(At least he’s got a reason for voting the way he votes. Last fall, during the California recall campaign, someone told me they were going to vote for Arnold. When I asked why, she told me “Oh, I don’t know.”)
Here’s my two cents on the gas price situation. First of all, gasoline IS expensive, but not to the point that it changes the American way of life. I understand that people on a tight budget are affected much more than those that are more affluent, but a lot of the griping I’ve heard over the recent rise in gas prices comes from people who drive SUVs or full-size pick-up trucks. I’m not all that sympathetic with those folks, regardless of their financial situation.
For a history of gas prices since 1979 adjusted for inflation, check out this page. You’ll notice that, though it fluctuates up and down a bit, the price of gas hasn’t really changed much since the mid-1980s. Here’s an article on the price gas within the context of history.
When it comes to the price of gas and the US Presidential elections, there are two options: Either it matters or it doesn’t matter. I think that it probably matters.
When it comes to controlling the price of gas, there are two options. We (the US) can influence the price or we cannot.
If we can’t, we can’t. We’re at their mercy, whoever “they” are.
If we can, there are three major ways and one minor way that we can do so.
First, the oil companies have a great deal of control over what you pay at the pump. If they really wanted prices lower, they could probably find a way to make them lower.
Second, the government can influence the price of gas directly by taxation and regulation, and indirectly through diplomacy and trade understandings with those that supply the oil.
Third, the US Marines can pretty much take whatever the hell they want if they want it bad enough.
Lastly, there is a slight amount of control available via the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Alaskan wildlife preserves.
The price of gas, like the price of anything else, begins as a supply-and-demand issue. It is then influenced, probably more than anything else, by outside, “unnatural” forces. Like governments.
Look at the three and a half ways that I’ve said the price of gas can be influenced. Think long and hard about them. If only there was someone, anyone, who could manage to exert a little control over those areas.
“Oh,” you say. “That’s easy. Between the President and the Vice President, they pretty much control all of those three and a half areas.”
And that’s why gas prices will be down by this fall.
Do I think that the President is intentionally manipulating gas prices higher right now? Not really. But I imagine that he’s letting it happen, or at least not altering his plans because it is happening. The last I heard, we are continuing to replenish the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and this is probably contributing slightly to the higher prices we’ve seen so far this year. If Bush was really worried about the price of gas at this time, he could stop the replenishment until prices were a little better. Some Democrats have called for using oil in the Reserve to help combat high prices. I don’t expect this call to be heeded.
And remember, Bush may want to fill the Reserve for reasons other than lining his friends’ pockets. Maybe he knows something we don’t about the availability of oil in the near future. Like if there were to be, say, “issues” with Saudi Arabia or a conflict in Iran. Please note that I’m not predicting these things or suggesting that the refilling of the SPR indicates that they are on the horizon, just that the President might have a specific reason in mind and he is not doing it “just in case.”
If Bush wants to lower prices, he and/or Cheney can lean on some Big Oil people. (If, on the other hand, the Big Oil people control Bush and Cheney, it’s in their interest that they’re reelected and they will comply on their own.) If Big Oil can’t help much, Bush can push for tax legislation or diplomacy with the Arabs or Russians or someone to increase the incoming crude. Or they can tinker with trade agreements and tariffs. If all else fails, they can send in the Marines. And, hell, half of them are already in the region. If the Marines are busy, and they are, Bush can call for drilling in Alaska and dare the opposition to stop him over some trees.
The standard operating procedure for the current administration seems to be to give the other side just enough rope to hang themselves. They’re probably doing it again.
And, while gas won’t be down to $1.30 this fall, I expect it to be down from where it is right now if there’s anything at all we can do about it.
Milk, on the other hand, is probably going to be through the roof. Which one of Bush’s people is in the pocket of Big Milk? And we’re short of Marines, since they’re all fighting for oil…
Instapundit notes a message he received:
Listen, if the Left believes that 7 soldiers out of 150 thousand abusing Iraqis detainees can sully the honor of the whole military, then this one shell is proof that Saddam had an extensive WMD program.
Fair enough. However, I don’t believe that 7 (or 70) soldiers out of 150,000 can sully the honor of the whole military or our invasion of Iraq, so I also don’t believe that this one shell is proof of anything.
Just as the 7 (or 70) soldiers who committed the abuse at Abu Ghraib might indicate a larger problem within the US military, the intelligence groups, or America at large, the chemical shell used to construct an improvised explosive device might indicate a larger program or plot concerning Iraqi WMDs. Or, like the the 7 (or 70) abusive soldiers in that prison, it might just be an aberration.
Talk softly, and let the other side carry on like a big dipstick.
