Why is this question being asked?

Why is this a question?

Is the country ready for ‘United 93?’

Did anyone ask if the country was ready for V for Vendetta, or American Dreamz? Of course not, and for two key reasons:

1) They can make whatever damn movie they want. If you don't want it to be made, then you don't make it. You don't get to decide that someone else can't make it either. It's well established that if an artist wants to create something, more power to 'em. I thought this question was settled when the NEA defended funding "Piss Christ".

2) Because those movies, and others, slam the current administration and its policies, to one degree or another, and thus are perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable, apparently, is portraying ordinary Americans as extraordinary people.

I don't know if I'm ready for United 93. I want to see it, I'll buy it when it comes out on DVD, I know it's a story that desperately needs to be told and re-told, but I don't know if I have the fortitude for the theatre experience. But bless the producers and director for making this film.

Let me try and make this clear and please don't misunderstand. The firemen and policemen who died in the World Trade Center, the men and women killed in the Pentagon, were heroes for being firemen and policemen and for serving their country, not necessarily for anything special they did on 9/11/2001. The fact they were willing to do a job that most people would not, to risk (at best) their reputation and (at worst) their lives made them heroes.

Indeed, members of those departments, and PD's and FD's around the nation, members of our Armed Forces, are our heroes. To focus on the police, the best of them prove the truth of Sir Robert Peel's principles of law enforcement, most especially:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

The key phrase is "the police are the public and the public are the police". How is this relevant to United 93? Because those passengers gave rise to Peel's observation that the police perform the duties "which are incumbent on every citizen".

They knew what was happening, they knew how things would end. They opted not to be passive, they took action and it cost them their lives. We will never know how many lives were saved but we should damnwell honor their sacrifice and remember what happened.

So yeah, hell yeah, United 93 had to be made, and we ought to be ready for it because we should never forget what happened that day. Not ever. And certainly we should never forget the sacrifices willingly made.

Amazing stupidity in the news

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Bush Eases Environmental Rules on Gasoline:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Under election-year pressure to reduce surging gasoline prices, President Bush on Tuesday halted filling of the nation's emergency oil reserve, urged the waiver of clean air rules to ease local gas shortages and called for the repeal of $2 billion in tax breaks for profit-heavy oil companies.

Compare the headling, "Bush eases environmental rules on gasoline" versus the story "urged the waiver of clean air rules". The headline, in other words, is a lie. Bush didn't "ease" a thing, he's recommending that the EPA temporarily ease some regulations.

And before you scream he's endangering the environment, were you also scream a few years ago when then-Governor Gray (Out) Davis was begging the EPA to grant California a waiver re replacing the gasoline addictive MTBE with ethanol? MTBE, the known carcenogenic. I do not recall a single environmental group or labor union screaming how Davis was going to give us all cancer.

That's because they're sensible when a Democrat is in office; they only go nutters when a Republican is in office.

But this story is full of laughs. Like:

Democrats, eager to blame Republicans for high gas costs ahead of the November congressional elections, said Bush has had five years to find a way to lower prices and has favored big oil companies over consumers.

But Democrats never want to lower prices. They want to tax the crap out of gasoline to 1) increase the amount of money the Federal government has to spend on crap and 2) alter the public's buying habits, that is, to encourage the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles.

(And never say never, since the article notes that Democrat Bob Menendez, NJ, is suggesting a 60-day suspension of the federal gas tax. Nice try, but note that it's a suspension, not a repeal.)

Others in the article make suggestions, but its worth noting that none of them would change the price tomorrow, if ever. Most are long-term, which is appropriate since how we got here is long-term. Namely, a complete Democrat stonewall of any attempt to explore for new sources of oil, plus increasing gas taxes to supplement government coffers, plus blocking any expansion (or even maintenance) of refining capability, plus blocking available alternative energy sources (i.e., nuclear), etc.

This is basic capitalism in action, supply and demand. The world demand is up (see China), the supply is limited (see lack of new developments) and so the price goes up. D'uh.

And before you rush out and buy that hybrid to save on the purchase of gasoline, don't forget to factor in the thousands of dollars you'll pay as a "premium" for the privelege.

For me, I'm getting 36mpg commuting on my motorcycle, and on longer runs I'm easily 40+. Cars are so...cage-like.

Next, a law mandating you lock your house

CNN.com - N.Y. county mandates wireless security - Apr 21, 2006:

New York's Westchester County has enacted a law designed to limit identity theft by forcing local businesses to install basic security measures for any wireless network that stores customers' credit card numbers or other financial information.

Also, because you are presumptively stupid....

The law also requires that businesses offering Internet access -- coffeehouses and hotels, for example -- post signs warning that users should have firewalls or other security measures.

Why this is a silly law is made clear a few paragraphs later....

Experts warned that the law would not fully protect anyone from dedicated hackers but acknowledged it could raise awareness of the vulnerabilities inherent in wireless technology.

So the county is imposing a legal burden on all businesses, big and small, for the sake of minimal education. And while the law may or may not have sanctions and/or punishments in case of violations of the law, it sets up any business for a civil suit. So what the hell is "basic security" anyway?

Make OS X open source?!?

John Dvorak: Apple Needs to Make OS X Open-Source:

A cloud is rising over Mac OS X and its future unless Apple makes its boldest move ever: turning OS X into an open-source project. That would make the battle between OS X and Linux the most interesting one on the computer scene. With all attention turned in that direction, there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stem a reversal of its fortunes.

Interesting concept. Apple has taken three discrete steps that have lured my interest. First was Mac OS X, a lovely operating system that deserves far greater exposure. Second, the shift to Intel. And third, Boot Camp, its "beta" software that allows a MacIntel user to install and boot Windows XP, in addition to Mac OS X.

Right then and there, with step three, I know that my next computer purchase will be a Mac, probably an iMac. More than good enough for the Mac application I want to run (Bartas Technologies Copywrite), and more than good enough to support the XP programs I want to run (Doom3, damnit). Oh, and I get to keep my entire PC library, all my files, hardware, etc. The TCO for a Mac, for me, fell through the floor.

I've always argued against the assertion that Apple is primarily a hardware company. They're not really primarily a software company, either. They are (surprise) something different, a company that sells a hardware/software symbios. Until recently, one could not live without the other.

That's no longer true. Apple's Intel hardware can now easily live without Apple's software. Certainly there were distros of Linux that always made this possible, but now we have Apple seemingly endorsing the concept.

So what of OS X? Apple can simply sell it to whoever wants it, to install it on whatever Intel (or AMD) box they choose. Just limit support to key manufacturers. Or, alternatively, make a deal with someone like Dell to market OS X on their machines.

Or, as Dvorak suggests, just release OS X to open source and concentrate on hardware.

Interesting times ahead.

Save the planet, get a motorcycle

For now, I have foresaken cars and will stick with my BMW K1200 LT (mine is not this new, it's a 2000). It's simple math.

My beloved, lamented, and missed Passat got around 20mpg on my current commute. Don't blame the car, blame the distance, as in less than 5 miles from home to office. Last year, when I was commuting a longer distance, I got over 30mpg on the commute. Under these same circumstances, my Beemer gets 35mpg. Voila, I almost half as much fuel as I used to.

Of course, now that I have helped save the planet I say it is time to pave the planet. I need more roads to ride on. As the T-shirt says: One world, one people, one slab of asphalt!

The Talk of the Town?

The New Yorker: The Talk of the Town:

The imminence of catastrophic global warming may be a subject far from the ever-drifting mind of President Bush—whose eschatological preoccupations privilege Armageddon over the Flood—but it is of growing concern to the rest of humanity. Climate change is even having its mass-entertainment moment. “Ice Age: The Meltdown”—featuring Ellie the computer-animated mammoth and the bottomless voice of Queen Latifah—has taken in more than a hundred million dollars at the box office in two weeks. On the same theme, but with distinctly less animation, “An Inconvenient Truth,” starring Al Gore (playing the role of Al Gore, itinerant lecturer), is coming to a theatre near you around Memorial Day. Log on to Fandango. Reserve some seats. Bring the family. It shouldn’t be missed. No kidding.

No way. Near as I can tell, most of the major leaders in the environmental movement are morally bankrupt, as in they don't mind a stretch or two with the truth. Few (none?) of their predictions pan out. Kyoto was/is/ever will be a joke. (If it was so damn important, why didn't Clinton/Gore really push for its ratification? Why blame Bush for what they put on the way back burner? Food for thought.)

There is still argument about global warming, no matter what Gore & Co. may say/scream/rant/kant. Even if the grant the notion, there is no solid evidence linking that to human activity. I'd feel a lot better about the global warming rant if they focused on how to cope with the alleged warming, rather than continually saying that the US must be destroyed (at least economically).

But no, their focus on the US changing the fundamentals of its society betrays the goal. Strange how all the major environmental movements are -- to be generous -- socialist in orientation.

Again, the goal isn't to "save" the environment. Consider that Kyoto adopts a "per capita" measure for the production of greenhouse gases. By that measure, China isn't even in the same league as the US. But if you measure actually tonnage of greenhouses gases produced, China is second only to the US, is expected to catch the US in the next few years, and will exceed in the US after 2010. And tonnage should be the focus, because if man-made greenhouses gases really are the cause of global warming, then the planet just doesn't give a fig about how much gas is generated per person; it cares about total tonnage, of which China (and India) produce a lot.

Yet China is exempt from Kyoto.

The Kyoto Accord is a farce and that Gore et al keep braying about Bush's refusal to sign tells me more about them than him.

So no. I thank you, but no, and yet still I thank you, but again no, I shall not pay to see Gore bray on.

Pigs fly yet again

Going Nuclear:

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

A couple of years ago, the Sacramento Bee ran a series of articles about the environment. The series recounted how the desperate need to save habitat for the spotted owl had forced the lumber industry of northern California out of business. It also revealed that at the time and unto this day, the spotted owl has never actually been seen in that area. So why was it that an industry had to die? Simple: A biologist who wrote the original report admitted -- years later -- that he just felt it was a gestalt that the reqion was the owl's habitat.

In other words, he lied through teeth because it just felt like owls would like that area.

Now we have this guy saying, "Oops!" That nuclear power wasn't as bad as he screamed. Nice.

I embrace his realization of his error. I lament that as a result of his earlier actions, the United States has shut down nuclear reactors and has no plans anywhere for building more.

Which sportscar am I...?

I'm a Chevrolet Corvette!

You're a classic - powerful, athletic, and competitive. You're all about winning the race and getting the job done. While you have a practical everyday side, you get wild when anyone pushes your pedal. You hate to lose, but you hardly ever do.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

A History of Violence

Watched David Cronenberg's A History of Violence last night. Kicks the crap out of Crash, and probably all the other films that were considered "Oscar worthy" for 2005. (I saw "probably" because I have not, as yet, seen the others.)

I like Cronenberg films. There is always something unsettling about them, and I don't just mean their subject matter. It's the way he does thing, how he films. All of his films are very straight-forward, or so it seems. When there's violence it always has a sense of here-and-now-real, with little pretense and not a hint of glory.

And that's true here. I remember reading that this is a difficult film to review, and now a difficult one to write about, because to really discuss the film you have to give everything away. Which would be wrong because even though you may assume what the truth is, that's only a part of the story. In short, the film doesn't rely on that mystery and that's why it's really, really good, if not great.

All performances are more than good enough, even Viggo who I normally just see and think "Zzzzz." The stand-out is Maria Bello as his wife. The things she has to go through and the transformations of her character...yeesh. She carries it all off very well; shame that the Academy didn't think so.

The plot of the film is simple: What if a person you thought you knew really well wasn't the person you thought he was? The answer isn't crucial to how Cronenberg's play the drama. It's how people react to the possibility, how things slowly begin to unravel, then accelerate.

Highly recommended, not necessarily for the faint of heart. Cronenberg is reputedly anti-violence but violence is at the core of this film. The never blinks or turns away from what people are capable of doing to each other, but the real violence in this film isn't physical, and that's what makes it a winner.

Return to Jackson's Kong, King

I should have written this last night, but I couldn't see straight. It was a three-way blitz: a bit of pink eye, a lovely carbernet, and watching the rest of Peter Jackson's King Kong. At the end of the marathon, the pink eye was in recession, the bottle was almost empty, and Kong wasn't half bad.

It wasn't half good, either. Attend!

Kong is a story in three acts: New York (meet everyone) -- Skull Island (meet Kong, etc.) -- New York (Kong as stage act). In the 1933 original, each of these is taut and to the point. In the 1976 re-visit, much the same time schedule is adhered to. In the 2005 re-make, each act is stretched almost beyond endurance. With the exception of 2005's third act, Jackson should have left well enough alone.

I already ranted about Act I, so on to II and III....

After a seemingly endless sea voyage during which damn near nothing happens, we arrive at Skull Island, "the most dangerous place on earth." I laugh outloud (blame the wine) at the natives, especially the white folk in black face. Oh how 1930's! Jackson overuses slow motion and overuses some sort of long-shutter speed smear technique that he should forget exists. Really. In all things, moderation. All things.

But there's nothing of moderation in the entire Skull Island sequence. It plays over and over as though Jackson was desperately trying to out jurassic Jurassic Park. But in terms of more dinosaurs, more lethal dinosaurs, more people stomped, more people eaten...just plain more more more!, that was already done in The Lost World. And Kong '05 doesn't live up to either film. It's all very pretty and all very lush and lots of times it feels all very fake, as though it was all created on a computer.

Oh, wait.

That's the problem with too much. A film depends on a willing suspension of disbelief, and while that's a strange topic to discuss in terms of a film about a 30-foot ape, it still applies. The brontosaur stampede: Too much, too unbelievable that everyone wasn't squished. Ann being carried off by Kong; too much, too much to believe that the neck of the fair and lovely Naomi Watts wouldn't snap like a very dry, very brittle twig under Kong's (at this point) untender treatment. Fall down the ravine, please. Dinosaurs fall down the ravine, oh for heaven's sake! And fighting on the way down. Gag!

Look, I live for these sorts of films and it was all so far over the top that I started laughing again, and this time I won't blame the wine.

But....

There is a sequence where Ann is just being carried in Kong's hand and the camera stays with her while all around the world whirls by, not just by Kong's speed but because he's swinging his arm, jumping around, leaping from tree to tree (with his best girl by his side; is Kong a lumberjack?). That sequence is magic. There are others, like the sunset, but they get lost in the noise of the rest. Thank God that at the end of all this, they capture Kong.

Have you seen the film? Have you seen any of the Kong films? If no, then go see and come back later, because I'm giving it all away, such a heartless bastard am I.

Last warning: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Very well, you have been warned. And now, Act III, Return to New York City:

I'm going to get my "complaints" for this part of the way right away. Much like the rest of the film, some things just go on far too long.

There, I'm done, because Act III redeems the film and makes it watchable and enjoyable. Jack Black's performance never gets good, but Naomi Watts takes over. Even what's his face, er (quick glance and IMDB), Adrien Brody turns out well. To explain what makes Act III so extraordinary and special, we have to return to 1933 and 1976.

In both of the priors versions, Kong in NYC is still a beast. He's shackled and chain, but he's still Kong, damnit, and he will kick your ass. In both, Ann willingly particpates in Kong's exhibition and humiliation. Ultimately he carries her off and she's with him when he faces his doom. In 1933, Kong dies, Ann gets reunited with her lover, the first mate, and all's as well as it's ever going to be.

In 1976, Kong dies but Ann tries to wave off the attacking helicopters, to save Kong. She fails, Kong dies, and the last scene is her with the body, surrounded by the press she's always sought, and her lover drifting away into the crowd, abandoning her.

Kong '05 rejects almost all of this, to its credit and ultimate success. When you see Kong on stage he is a whipped puppy, a shadow of his former self, less than a shell. He is passive to the point of being pitiful. When "Ann" appears on stage, he brightens up, only to discover that this "Ann" is an actress, not his Ann. His Ann has refused to participate in Kong's humiliation and wants nothing to do with the extravaganza.

(Props to that extravaganza, too. It's a stage recreation of the 1933 Skull Island ceremony, complete with Max Steiner's music. Geek heaven!)

This fake, plus a few flash bulbs, pisses Kong off and he goes off on a tear, just like in the prior films. What is different is that he doesn't go searching for Ann, she finds him. The beast is soothed, he gathers up his girlfriend, and they go for a stroll in the park. I am not kicking.

The ice "skating" scene is breathtaking and beautiful. You know it can't last, here comes the Army and all, but for a few shining minutes Jackson's Kong ceases to be a movie. It rises to the level of beauty and is damn-near art (though I hate that term, "art", and wouldn't curse this part of the film by calling it "art").

The attack and death of Kong go on too long, but the only other thing that ruins the third act is Jack Black's flat and lifeless recitation of the closing line, "Twas beauty that killed the beast." Ugh.

In sum, Kong '05 has moments, most of which are during the final act. I still prefer the original 1933, and look forward to adding the trashy but strangely watchable 1976 version to my Kong collection. If nothing else, I'll be watching Act III 2005 several times.

Jackson's King Ko-uhhh-Zzzzz....

I admit it. I was pre-disposed to not like Peter Jackson's King Kong.

Like Jackson, I'm a big fan of the original 1933 version. Heck, I even like a few moments in the 1976 rendition, which is otherwise pretty awful. But when Dino de Laurentis announced he was remaking the fabled film, he made no pretense of being some great lover of the original. Oh, he liked it, and said so, but compare with Jackson, who made the original sound like his mother. Now, I love my mother, and I'm sure Jackson loves his mother, but I'd never want to make love with my mother. Jackson, on the other hand....

Oh, that's harsh. Let's concentrate on the film instead.

Watching the first third of Jackson's film is seeing a man obsessed with himself. There are plenty of coy moments, but since Jackson takes us back to the time at which the original was made, 2005 begs comparison with 1933. And 1933 kicks 2005's ass.

Jackson takes a full 30 minutes to do what Cooper and Schoedsack did in 10 or less. Worse, the expasion adds precisely zip. It's just showing off a digitally recreated New York of the 1930's. The original film is on Skull Island within 20 minutes, Jackson takes over and hour. And while 2005 won an Oscar for visual effects it all feel relentlessly fake. The lighting never seems right. Ugh.

I stopped watching when Kong snatched Ann. All interest was lost. It was all remarkably uninvolving. The snatch was nicely done, with Kong all in shadow and mist, but Rick Baker as man-in-a-suit Kong from 1976 does better. Maybe when I try and watch again, I'll get more into it, but frankly I like Baker's man-in-a-suit Kong better than Jackson's CGI rendition. And for sheer emotional enjoyment, the 1933 Kong rules.

Other things bother the crap out of me. Max Steiner's score from 1933 is worthy of orchestral presentation. John Barry's score from 1976 is one of his best, and easily the finest thing in the film. James Newton Howard has the thankless task of following in their footsteps, and he doesn't come into his own until the arrival on the island. His gentle score underlying Hayes' recitation from Conrad's Heart of Darkness is superb; in fact, that gentle bit of film is the best thing in whole first hour. It is certainly a juicy, forboding quote:

We could not understand because we were too far and could not remember because we were traveling in the night of first ages, of those ages that are gone, leaving hardly a sign - and no memories. The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there - there you could look at a thing monstrous and free.

I have a certain faith that in the next two hours of the film, Howard's music continues to improve.

But I don't know, not yet. As the mighty crew takes off into the jungle in pursuit of Kong and Ann, I eject the disk and look for something else to watch. Ah, there it is, my new 50th anniversary version of The Ten Commandments.