Oscar Improvements

I don't watch Oscar telecasts because (a) I'm not in the movie industry and (b) I haven't been lobotomized yet. Five solid hours of anything on television had better involve a car chase, Amazonian kung fu women, and Christopher Walken with a chainsaw. How anyone can sit through bland thank-you speeches, brief, out-of-context film clips, and endless fawning of one celebrity over another is not for me to guess. Apparently for the big awards, "Black Swan" and "The Fighter" did well, but "The King's Speech" cleaned up with both the Best Picture and Best Actor wins. As yet I have seen none of these films and was quite upset when "Vampires Suck" didn't even get nominated.

The win by "The King's Speech" makes sense, according to the tried-and-true formula of how to win at Oscars--British accents, a period piece, a plot of historical importance--this was practically child's play. Not to take away from the film--having not seen it yet, I hear it's good--but I can think of a few ways to improve the Academy Awards.

1) Don't televise it. These things should be privately held functions--just think of the mystique! We only find out how the thing went down the next day when the Academy releases its news to the world.

2) All nominations can only be for films released at least ten years ago. This makes it more like a Hall of Fame, but it ensures that the movies nominated have withstood the test of time. Just think--at the 2009 Academy Awards, they never would have nominated dreck like "Titanic" and "Shakespeare in Love". And a brilliant film like "Memento" would have a shot later as its director, Christopher Nolan, saw his star rise.

3) Combine overly specific categories. For example, "Best Original Screenplay" and "Best Adapted Screenplay" should be combined to "Best Writing". And, since foreign films can compete for Best Picture, there should be no "Best Foreign Film" category. After all, we don't have "Best Comedy Film Involving Pie Fights" or "Best Film Using Dinosaurs."

4) Include new categories such as "Best Scene" and "Best One-Liner" and "Best Ad Lib". Some films that aren't good enough to win Best Picture might still have one great scene or line.

Middle Eastern Unrestfullness

With the mounting upheavel across the middle east, there seem to be three likely scenarios for each country undergoing mass unrest:

1) The regime weathers the storm, by cracking down oppressively on the protesters or by co-opting them with reforms that take the wind from their sails. The U.S. maintains a status quo arrangement with this regime.

2) The regime topples, and is replaced by a more modernist, humane and/or democratic government that placates the populace and improves the society. Hooray, the U.S. now has new friends! And ones that aren't corrupt kingpins sitting on a simmering powder keg.


3) The regime topples, and is replaced by (a) long, painful civil war and chaos, a la Somalia or Algeria, or (b) a vile, radicalized regime that wants to offer its people the best that the tenth century had to offer. Uh oh, the U.S. now has an enemy much crazier and energetic than ever before!


What are policymakers to do? Pledge immediate support, moral, economic and military, for the protesters to try and ingratiate ourselves to them and help them win? Back the status quo regimes if they're friendly to us, even if that means going against our democratic values and backing thugs? We have a long history of backing the wrong horse (Vietnam, pre-Castro Cuba) and creating new headaches for ourselves. We have also sometimes encouraged revolutions that came back to haunt us (Iran in '79). Maybe the solution is the George Costanza solution--do the opposite of our instincts.


So how do we go against our instincts here? Invade Canada. No one will see it coming.


Sorry, Canada, we have nothing against you. We just want your sweet, sweet Molson.

Libyan Libido

Ah, Libya--when they're not trying to kill Marty McFly at the Twin Pines mall before he goes back to the future, they're fixing to revolt against their maniac terrorist leader. Let's start with the initial problems with Khadaffi:

1) No one can spell his name. Quadaffi, Khadafi, Cuadaffei, Ghadaffy--apparently, any way you spell it is acceptable. And it's not just an Arab thing--apparenly no one spells "Arafat" as "Erefet" or "bin Laden" as "Ben Ludden" or whatnot. This leads me to believe Khadaffi is just plain difficult. Knock it off, Moammar!

2) He's only a Colonel. That means he doesn't even outrank Sanders. How can he even command his generals, when he's at a lower rank? No wonder his military sucks!

3) He expelled all the country's Italians 40 years ago. So next time you can't get a good slice of pizza in Tripoli, you know who to blame. Way to improve your country, fool!

4) He is guarded by a platoon of karate-trained female bodyguards. Ok, that is kind of neat. Sort of like he got his governing ideas from watching "Dolemite".

But now, we have reports that this nut has ordered armed mercenaries and supporters to open fire on protesters and up this incident to Tiannamen Square levels. (Not that T-Square ever hurt China any). His cabinet is abandoning him, and entire cities in the country are in the hands of rebels. This doesn't look like it will end well! A few thoughts:

1) Khadaffy will have to find somewhere to run to if he gets out of this alive. Saudi Arabia is a possibility, as that's where Idi Amin ran to, and rumors abound that Khadaffe's mother was Jewish and if true, he could go to Israel under their "right of return" laws which would be delicious irony. There's always France, which loves to house scoundrels from Trotsky to the Ayatollah.

2) What is it with former Italian colonies going completely to pot? Somalia, Libya--it's as though the Italians can only leave a legacy of chaos. It's like the French times ten.

3) It would be nice to see the President speak out forcefully to address these protests that are now sweeping the Arab world. Sure, we don't want to make it seem like the protesters are puppets of Uncle Sam, and also we want to be careful not to support uprisings that could lead to anti-American governments. But some general statement of principles could provide a morale boost for those who are putting their lives on the line to topple vile regimes right now.

Beatles Conspiracy Theory

Generally, conspiracy theories can be fun--they challenge an otherwise accepted fact, and as usual, the theorist will have an answer for anything. How do you explain the footage of the moon landing if the landing was faked? Soundstage. How did so many NASA engineers agree to the coverup? Payoffs. And why? Because the government needed a morale boost during Vietnam to show we're winning the Cold War.

Of course, some conspiracy theories border on the offensive, such as Holocaust denial (the Nazi one, I mean), or 9/11 truthers (these also lack adequate justification for WHY these conspiracies would take place--what would the masterminds of staging 9/11 gain that they couldn't have done with a much less risky scheme?). But then every now and again comes a conspiracy theory that is generally lighthearted. I'm talking about the long-running "Paul McCartney died in 1966" theory.

In a nutshell--during the Beatles mid-'60s heyday, Paul McCartney died in a car crash, and the British government was distraught due to the immense amount of tax revenue the Beatlemania industry was bringing in. They paid off everyone involved in the conspiracy--producer George Martin, manager Brian Epstein, the other three members of the Fab Four, Paul's family--and hired a convincing look-alike to fill in for Paul. The band survived a few more successful years before splitting into successful solo acts. The fact that they had pretty much stopped touring in 1966 lends credence to the theory.

And the clues--oh, the clues! In the link above, it points to several hints on album covers and in songs that the other members of the Beatles put out various clues that Paul had died. Perhaps the most well-known of the clues is the "Abbey Road" album cover--the Four respresenting key parts of a McCartney funeral: John dressed as a preacher, Ringo as undertaker, George as gravedigger, Paul in formal suit and shoeless as corpse (apparently corpses were buried barefoot?) and the car license plate reading "28 IF" meaning Paul would be 28 then if he were alive. It takes a sinister turn when the theory supposes that John Lennon was killed in 1980 by a man brainwashed by British intelligence because John was going to reveal the truth.

However, the theory has some holes--why, if this were such an important, airtight conspiracy, would the Beatles risk giving it away by sending out clues? Surely if some fans could pick up the clues, there was a good risk that vigilant MI5 agents would as well--especially since the agents were looking specifically for any leaks. Also, wouldn't the British government know there's always a chance Beatlemania could fade, and the death of a beloved performer could if anything lead to more tribute concerts and album sales? If the other Beatles could go on recording with an imposter, surely they could go on as a trio (or with a new member). Also, to find a person who could look, act and SOUND exactly like Paul McCartney? Sort of improbable, particularly when fronting a band as well known and followed as the Beatles at the time. The "new" Paul would not just be filling in, after all, but performing key hits for the band for the next three years and embarking on a successful solo career.

So what of the clues? I think if there's any conspiracy, this was a conspiracy by the band or its management to give out a hint that there was a conspiracy, partly to have fun with their fans and partly to keep stoking public interest in the band. After all, the "Paul is Dead" theory has been a key part of Beatles lore since the late '60s and a playful joke with their most dilgent fans is certainly in the character of the Fab Four.

Birdemic!

I have reviewed a number of terrible films in my time--with one taking particular precedence over others in the scale of one to awful--but we have a new contender in the category of "worst ever". Last night, I had the pleasure of watching "Birdemic: Shock and Terror".

Now, when you first hear the word "Birdemic" you may be thinking that you're about to see an homage to Hitchcock, and with the improvements on special effects over the past fifty years it should be better than ever. You might expect some clever writing, competent acting, and direction that keeps you in the story and at the edge of your seat at the same time.

What you get instead is a disaster that appears to have cost about the same amount as some kid could make in a summer job delivering newspapers. The film takes about 45 minutes to get to the real story, instead building up this stalker-esque "romance" between the two leads, with dialogue that appears to have been read directly off of note cards on the very first take. While this couple meets, dates, and ends up in bed together fully clothed, there are cuts to a newscaster who appears to be working in a studio our of 1970s Russia, who constantly reports on effects of global warming. See, in case you're not very bright--and therefore the target audience for "Birdemic"--you might miss the subtle as a sledgehammer allusion to the fact that the impending bird attacks are caused by global warming. Why Al Gore left this film out of his own presentation is anyone's guess.

So just when you're about to shut off the TV due to really not giving a rat's ass about the lead couple, the birds begin attacking. How do you know they're attacking? Well, first you hear screeching in the distance, and then you see some cartoon birds superimposed on the film and the "actors" trying to react to these things. Here's some clips. Try not to be scared.

What could be scarier than being attacked by cartoon birds? Oh, I don't know, maybe ANYTHING??? What baffles me is that James Nguyen, the "director" (which somehow implies that he's responsible for this mess) tried to play this off as a straight horror film. He might have been better off just pretending that these were invisible birds, rather than hoping that animated birds were going to scare his audience. The only thing missing was a statement at the end of the film that says "no cartoon birds were hurt while making this picture".

Even scarier? There's apparently a sequel.

Budget Nuttery

If there's one thing you're hearing about in the news right now--besides the upheaval across the Arab world and Michelle Obama trying to breast-feed Americans--it's the constant budget wars between the GOP and Democrats. If both sides are correct--and of course they should be!--this is because Republicans are trying to starve poor people and Democrats are busy trying to pay for a socialist state.

Of course, if you're not a meathead, then you'll recognize that our problems really can be boiled down into one sentence:

Americans want more government than they're willing to pay for.

That's really it. Years of Republicans in charge have shown us that no one will dare make serious spending cuts in the three sacred cows (defense, social security, medicare) and the Democrats for their part are scared to suggest significant tax increases--at most, they'll limit the higher taxes to the rich which won't raise enough revenue (and even then, with lopsided control of Congress and the White House, they couldn't even let the current tax rates lapse to the Clinton-era rates--which procedurally is MUCH easier to do than actually pass a tax increase, since they'd have to do nothing to accomplish this). In a way, you could say that both parties are representing the will of the people. After all, deficits are everyone and no one's problem, but a rise in your taxes or a cut in your benefits are your individual problem, and you'll be quite pissed if it happens.

Same thing at the state level. Wisconsin has evolved into a farce, with anti-GOP protesters forgetting the "new era of civility" in politics (it is once again acceptable to portray a politician with crosshairs over his face!), Democratic lawmakers skipping town to avoid the vote (great message that sends!) and Republicans unwilling to compromise over any of this. But you know what? Maybe this is all for the best. If they can't do anything useful, at least they can entertain.

In the meantime, we should all think about what countries we want to be citizens of when this one collapses.

Damn Spiders

Having been long a fighter in the war against spiders, I can appreciate this brilliant, eye-opening article. Spiders are our ancient mortal enemy, and it is only through evolutionary luck that we evolved to be bigger than them (though certain spiders in Brazil have been coming close. Which is proof of another theory I have, that Brazilians have to be completely bonkers to share a country with spiders big enough to eat birds). It is due to my understanding of the spider menace that I have established my "jungle rule"--actually, it's far too serious for a rule. It's more of a "jungle commandment". That is, I never enter a jungle without a working flamethrower just in case I see a spider the size of a dog.

As the article notes, many hippies have tried to convince us that spiders are our friends, since they kill lots of other pests. Sure, I guess, until you consider that ever since we invented bug zappers we don't need these eight-legged menaces. When's the last time you walked into a web weaved by a bug zapper? When's the last time a bug zapper tried crawling up your leg? Answer that one, hippies!

But don't just take my word for it--notice that every place where large spiders are part of the natural habitat leads to a higher increase of crazy people:

1) Brazil. The presence of giant spiders has turned Brazilians into a nation of soccer-loving forest-burners.

2) Rwanda. The giant spiders may not have directly caused their ethnic cleansing, but I'm sure they didn't help matters.

3) India. That poor country has enough other crap to deal with, giant spiders too? Unfair!

4) Texas. They're all crazier in Texas! Comes from having to stomp tarantulas all day long.