Champions League Quarter Preview

Now, let's take a break from the NCAA March Madness tournament, as march is winding down. I bring to you, from the other side of the ocean, SOCCER -- specifically the Champions League.

Champions League is like their equivalent to Major League Baseball -- it has the best teams from one region (MLB - North America, CL - Europe) from one sport (MLB - baseball, CL - soccer), all from different countries (MLB - USA, Canada, the south; CL - France, Italy, England, Spain, Germany, Russia, etc).

And now for my completely unbiased preview of upcoming Champions League play




Shit yeah, motherfucker

Anyways.

The games are played in pairs - one home and one away for each team. Winning both games guarantees advancing. If both games tie or end with one win/one loss, then goals are added up. The team with more goals advances. If that doesn't do the trick, then away goals count for more, and the team that scored more away advances. IF that doesn't declare a winner, then they play overtime or something in the last game.

Matchups are as follows:

Olympique Lyon vs Bordeuax
Bayern Munich vs Manchester United
Arsenal vs Barcelona
Internazionale Milan vs CSKA Moscow

Naturally, we all know Lyon is going to advance like a truck (a renault truck?) past oblivious Bordeaux. That's a given. What's not given, though, is why UEFA (the european soccer FIFA or whatever) decided to pit these two against eachother. Clearly UEFA is afraid of the dominance that is Ligue 1, and they are scared of France dominating the world of soccer, much like Zinedine Zidane dominated the belly of Marco Materazzi. By pairing these two teams against eachother, UEFA doesn't have to worry about 2 French teams being left in the semi-finals, and then 2 French teams facing off for the title. This way, they can nip it in the bud, deal with one at a time, divide and conquer.

I'm onto your games UEFA.

Bayern Munich vs Manchester United

This would be interesting if it were FC Shalke 04 vs Manchester City, but alas we're given these two teams instead. And it's not like they even have all their awesome players -- Ollie Khan, Lothar Matthaus, Christiano Ronaldo, George Best -- ALL GONE. All moved to the greener pastures of other, better, teams or retirement; or in the case of George Best, the green beneath him is simply his own vomit.

Arsenal vs Barcelona

Arsenal is an interesting story in that despite having the only undefeated team in the modern history of the English Premier League, they managed to remain completely irrelevant. This is also in addition to the fact that they are essentially London's team (yeah, I know London has like 20 teams, but only Chelsea recently actually plays dece). Yep. Irrelavent despite being from the capital city of the country who claims to have invented the sport (though to be fair, I think the English would claim invention of the potato if you gave them the chance). But alas I stray, point being, best player on that undefeated team is currently on Barcelona, who happen to be reigning Champions League Champions (sounds a bit redundent, hey I know, Europe isn't really known for refinement and culture). This best player (from Arsenal, he's probably not the best on Barcelona, at least not at this point in time) -- Thierry Henry, longtime legend of French soccer, who gloriously single handedly defeated Ireland to qualify France for the 2010 World Cup. Just saying.

Internazionale vs Moscow

The other team from Milan, the team that manages to not be more Evil than AC Milan (by holding scum like Marco Materazzi on the roster) faces down this years eastern europe cinderella story (fuck, I thought this was soccer, not basketball). Personally, I was looking forward to a Turkish team holding that title this year, or maybe even Olympiakos from Greece. Sparta Praha also would've been pretty dice, but they just haven't been the same since the fall of the Soviet Union. Anyways, of all the games, this is probably the one I am least likely to watch.

Predictions are for suckers and psychics (read:suckers)

-- Knuttel

Madness? THIS IS MARCH; part 3

My results from the second round:

As one can see, I was actually 8/10 in games where my team had not been eliminated from the first round, and even then, both of the losses were only slated to win that game.

So no further elite 8's lost, etc.

But I wanted to try something else, as I had been indicating in previous posts. I wonder how this coin flipping strategy would work in a smaller field, in a more even field. So I reflipped, using a bracket of lesser quality (who makes sweet 16 brackets anyway?), and thusly didn't care about my own production values.





This time, Xavier does not play the upset champions, and only advances one more round. Cornell becomes the true cinderella this time, crashing all the way to the final four. But in the end, it ends up being number 1 Syracuse vs number 3 Baylor in the title game, both within the top 15 teams in the country. Baylor wins.

Let's see how this turns out.

Madness, THIS IS MARCH! : Part 2, first round done

So the first round is done. I have crossed out all losers, wherever they may lie in the bracket.

As you can see, I'm really not in terrible shape.

I have lost half of my elite 8, yet only one final four. Even better, I have only lost 6 of my sweet 16.

In addition, I picked one of the biggest upsets of the tournament so far -- Murray State over Vanderbilt. However, I also got screwed over by another huge upset that I didn't pick -- Ohio over Georgetown.

So really, this bracket is turning out as planned. It's gonna take some hits early on, simply because most lower seeds don't have what it takes to play against upper seeds (I had only 5 of the top 8 seeds advancing; all 8 top seeds advanced). I think the heart of this theory lies once the weaker teams are weeded out. That's when the true coin flip happens.

Therefore, I will conduct another round of coin flipping after the second round is done, and possibly another for the semis/final.

-- Knuttel

by request I'll do a thingy on the upcoming Champions League Quarterfinals. God, I haven't written about soccer in almost a year.

Madness? THIS IS MARCH!

OK, lame pun aside, I actually decided to fill out a bracket this year for fun, even though I am not taking part in any pools or anything.

I used a breakthrough method that is going to fundamentally change the way everybody looks at the NCAA tournament.

I flipped a coin to determine the winner of each game. Tails is the higher seed because of its slightly higher chance of landing -- the heads side of a quarter is hardly heavier, which makes it barely easier for the quarter to land heads side down.

You see, I don't really watch college basketball -- Penn State, though reigning NIT champs, have never really been able to maintain a decent men's basketball team, though the women had a long string of success which was pulled apart by player-coach feuds and allegations of lesbianism etc. Point is, if you go to Penn State, you watch football, you may also watch basketball, but it sure as hell isn't gonna be Penn State's.

And so here goes the bracket which will change the course of college basketball, if not human history.




Shit yeah, Xavier all the way.
Vermont is this year's Cinderella. You saw it here first.

-- Knuttel

Beware

Beware the ides of march....

HAPPY JULIUS CAESAR DAY!!!!

celebrate by acting/dramatic reading the play

-- The Knuttel is a colossus who doth bestride the earth

Evolution of a Situation: The Real Danger of Teaching Creationism

Full disclosure: I am not a biologist, nor have I studied in depth the theory of evolution, but I fancy myself to have a better understanding than those discrediting it. I believe it to be an imperfect work in progress, but the closest thing we have to the truth. I also spent grades 4-12 in Catholic school, making my education during which I'd learn this very Christian.

That being said; ignoring the idea of evolution or teaching an alternate to evolution is nothing more than a disservice to the children. And to be honest, it has less to do with their beliefs etc. than one would imagine. The actual theory is really more of a biological history lesson in practicality, unless one becomes a biologist/geneticist whatevs, happening over such a long period of time that one would have a difficult time to perceive it, if it is perceived at all. I could go on bashing one theory while supporting the other, but that's really not the purpose of this article.

But first, some background information. Evolution was initially developed in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, who was influenced by Lamarke a century earlier. Until these two, the idea of an animal changing over the long course of time wasn't really proposed. It really wasn't a religious/scientific disagreement, it simply wasn't thought of.

Creationists/Intelligent Designers naturally get their start with Creationism, which is the larger theory based on the fact that God created the earth and everything as it is today period. This came about during the Protestant reformation. Up until then, religious scholars (both Christian and Jewish) were the ones who interpreted scripture, and had largely came to the consensus that the creation story as portrayed in the Bible (both Christians and Jews share this creation story in the old testament) was meant to be symbolic and allegorical. The fact that there appears to be two separate creation stories (I suppose subtitled part 1:the creation of the world, part 2:the creation of man) that aren't entirely congruous kinda points to this. With the Protestant reformation, people such as Martin Luther proposed more literal (some entirely) interpretations of the Bible. The word of God is for the people, after all, not for scholars. This, of course, led to the idea that if God created the world, the animals, and man; then God created the animals as is. The date of the creation of the world by these measures has also been up to some debate within evangelical circles, as there are no real specific things to go off of, datewise, except Jesus' birth, and that may have been erred itself. Many dates, even the one placed in the King James Bible, happen after the recorded beginning of civilized human history.

And there I start to ramble.

The problem with teaching creationist type theories has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with intellectual honesty, and intellectual laziness. If the facts present themselves to support one theory, perhaps not entirely; and at the very least, discredit the other; what choice is a rational person to make? Asking someone to ignore that which is more empirically based is dishonest and lazy. How do you teach the thought process of learning creationism? Faith is nice, but faith won't make one smarter, and it won't teach someone how to teach themself.

Frankly I have a hard time understanding how this is even an argument, and how entire schoolboards (and occassionally states) can decide that teaching creationism is ok.

This is entirely disregarding the separation of church and state that exists within our government. The United States of America is a nation of free religion. That doesn't mean you can practice whatever sect of Christianity you want. It means you can practice any religion in any sect (though the line I think is drawn where things like public safety are endangered), and why should a non-christian be forced to learn the christian teaching of creation in federally, state, and locally funded public schools.

Even Saint Thomas Aquinas would be horrified to see something like this, and he is one of the most important church scholars in history. If one can achieve sainthood while still pursuing rational and scientific pursuits, why is some of this nation scared of everything going to hell if we teach science?

Goddamnit, Texas



-- Knuttel

seriously, separation of church and state. only a matter of time before this is a court case, and its gonna be messy.

Guy Fieri: NBC REALLY Could Care Less About What They Put On TV

So the whole Leno/Conan thing has played out, partially at least, and has proven that while Leno may be an asshole and incompetent, really it is the Producers at NBC who are incompetent assholes.

Case in point: tonight's (Sunday) new program

I really don't care enough to know the actual title of the show, but I'll say all that needs to be said -- Guy Fieri; game show host.

I should also mention at this time that this show contains no cooking whatsoever (at least on purpose, I do suppose incidental cooking may happen). At least when NBC game Emeril his own show in 2001 (full disclosure, i actually like Emeril and his cooking/cooking programs) it was a sitcom that was about his life as a chef (I think, I only really watched an episode or two, hey, "Emeril Live" was on).

This proves my theory that guy fieri knows little to nothing about cooking. He does seem to be able to turn knobs to operate ranges and ovens, but it's hard to tell if he knows what he's doing with it.


"Today I'm gonna throw at you some 8-pepper infused chili burgers, with a side of potato salad on some classic chawhola rolls"

"This appears to be a burnt meat patty on a chewy roll with a tub of mayonaise sitting next to it"

"And to go with it, I know y'all like whiskey sours, so how 'bout we add some grenadine and pineapple juice to it"

"Fuck"

-- Just a typical scene from his "cooking" show (I put it in quotes because half the show seems to be devoted to taking a fruity, girly drink, somehow making it girlier, and claiming it goes with the "meal" he's creating).

Moving on.

He doesn't really know what he's doing inside a kitchen, but it's clear the man eats, so they decide to send him on a trip to lots of backwater local "diners, drive-ins, and dives" and watch him pig out. Seriously, the man will eat anything.



"The secret, guy, is instead of using 4 slices of bacon on our burgers, we use 6. We also mix some lard in the ground beef to make it juicier"

"Oh man, I can tell, it really makes a difference. I'll take 5"

"Umm, what about the rest of our menu?"

"Oh we got time, we'll get there, no worries"

--Again, typical.

Notice the backwards sunglasses, to scare off the ghosts of animals who swore to haunt him once they found out what would be done with their meat. Some corn too, I hear that stuff walks nowadays. Regardless, you know they're no longer gonna be transparent once they go over his eyes due to all the hair gel and bleach residue. It's really a deadly combination.

Maybe it's just his personality and his dress. He comes off as that loud fat kid who tried being likable by wearing gaudy clothes and having eating contests with himself.



"Check it, son, I'm on my A-game. I just ate 2 whole pizzas in 10 minutes. Man, I am gonna slow dance with so many girls tonight. Yo, dudes, "Halo" at my place later? Cool, cool."

--How I imagine his thought process goes.

Maybe I'm just curious, how has he become a face of America, and how serious is the threat he may become the face of America.

-- Knuttel

P.S. how did he manage to make goatees more douchey? I'm actually kind of impressed by that.

So Education Really Is Indoctrination...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839979/from/RSS/

So I hate to use msnbc for something like this, but it's painfully hard to find sources for this kind of stuff sometimes.

News organizations don't really have any use for putting out news unless it will get them money/attention (just as publishers won't put out a book unless it will make money for them, regardless of potential artistic merit).

So because it is msnbc, please filter the article accordingly.

The worst kind of thing about an article like this is this kind of thing usually only happens at local level politics (say, a school district, maybe an entire county), and then gets overturned the next year or so. This particular event has jurisdiction over an entire state (one of the largest at that), and could arguably last for 10 years.

Frankly, it wreaks of educational irresponsibility. OK, you want your children to grow up Christian, that's awesome, just don't lie about the world in doing so. Or if you have that much of an issue with how the public school system is handling the Christian teachings etc, don't take down the entire state with you, just send your kids to a Christian school.

There's no point in me detailing specifics, as my knowledge is mostly limited to the article, but are we really still arguing about evolution?

I hope the Supreme Court intervenes in some manner, though preferably gingerly (last thing you want is the Christian Right Screaming about activist courts).




-- Knuttel

Covering Up My Dirty Past

I recently conducted an excavation and extraction of certain items from my closet in order to clear up space.

You see, I had this gi-hugic container taking up waaay too much floorspace.

So I tore it apart, mining only ore, and smelting it to get rid of all the useless impurities.

Thus I am left with the metal of my middle school and high school years (even my freshman year of college) (1995/6/7ish - 2005). For the record, what I refer to as middle school actually begins in 4th grade (most of the stuff I found was actually 6 onward btw) as it was a school that went from Pre-K to 8th, but I transferred into in 4th grade.

So what makes the Knuttel of these years?

Well, first off, I think it's safe to say I was largely an outcast for most of my middle school years. There were a variety of factors to this, but that's irrelevant. During 8th grade I was comfortable there, but I can tell from certain things that I was still not understood as a person. Good times, where for the most part, what I had was music (listening and playing) and literature (reading and writing). So even though I was good at science then, and through High School, it was never totally recognized by myself as a passion. Oddly enough, my scientific interests of the time were largely creative, though I actually think arrived at independently. I found a book I used to keep in 5th grade that listed all my "inventions", which were really hastily drawn pictures with part descriptions, half using real and often incredibly simplistic technology, the other half using things you'd find in an episode of star trek. Needless to say, pretty much everything in the book either is/has the capability to be made already, or won't exist anytime soon. Not to mention a large portion of them are simply presented as concepts (i.e. the concept of a star ship, no really). Makes sense the science I entered college for was Physics (I think I wanted to do theoretical to boot), as opposed to engineering or biology/medicine.

The High School I left for was larger, and therefore less personal, and thus the material left behind was less personal. But it still appeared to be that guy -- creatively endeavored with an aptitude in science.

Sometimes I wish math never failed me (or maybe it's supposed to be vice versa, but whatevs).

Regardless, High School socially was exponentially better. And college seemed to run straight in. I guess it was kind of like that, taking 4 AP classes senior year (with block scheduling, so for one semester it was nothing but AP), it really was a college year in high school.

But that's besides the point, really, isn't it?

What is the point?

The point is the past is the past. All it does is create a foundation for the present. Besides that, it's already happened, and there's really nothing you can do about it. There are no time machines (not even in my little invention book). What's done is done, and deal with it.

Maybe I should've started in the social sciences/liberal arts instead of starting in physics, but it doesn't matter because I did what I did. Simple as that. I wonder if there are any people who have finished with a physics degree at the age of 22 having already finished a play (musical too) at 18. Maybe that's just an indication that I would've left eventually anyway. I would've had to make sacrifices sometime along the way, and given up on what had actually given my life meaning to that point. My early grades pushed me against the wall quickly, so I went to another wall, with perhaps the unintended side effect of not "caring" about grades, rather the experience of learning -- I ended up learning alot of what was not on the curriculum, following my own studies, while simply trying to maintain passing grades. And so I graduated with a GPA below 3. High School finished with 3.5 (well, 90).

So I guess the biggest question about this experience isn't really what to make of my past; my past already happenned; but what to make of my future.

What does the future hold for Knuttel?

Will he finally get in (and stay in) to OCS (finding out I was disenrolled from Fall 09 about a week ahead of time was a killer)? This Fall marks my last attempt to get into Quantico.

Will he return to school (and if so, for what)?

Will he find a job to pass the time and get seriously (and I mean seriously) back into writing?
-- If recent activity on the blog is any indiciation, this may be most likely.

Will he submit his body for government experimentation?

Will he join a cult, or maybe even become a cult leader?


I mean, really, the possibilities are endless. And I must say, it is both thrilling and terrifying.



if only

-- Knuttel

13

Subtitled: my own trek, or, the king's highway
or even simply, the 13s (thirteens). grammar's such a fickle thing anyway.



So there it lay, most of one of my recent travels. This particular travel took me into Center City, and the next day into the furthest reaches of what I would consider suburbia. My launching location to each of these being in the heart of suburbia, Levittown. In order to make the trip appear as a single line, i had to approximate around the launch/center point. Besides, why would I be so stupid as to reveal my actual address to the interwebz so willy nilly?

The purpose of this is of no importance to the casual reader as well, let's just call it a wild goose chase. If you know, well you know, and if you don't, well whatevs.

Let's just call this a juxtaposition piece. One minute I am in the heart of Center City, Philadelphia; I board the el (which is at this juncture, de-elevated, that is to say, underground), about 5-10 minutes later I am above ground (elevated, finally) and travelling through North and North East Philadelphia to arrive at the Frankford Transportation Center I guess about 15 minutes after that. The rest is all driving down Frankford Ave/Bristol Pike (route 13), and later on, down 213 and 413 to reach Richboro, a bucolic and open outer suburb.

It's just an interesting experience, watching the buildings and concrete slowly peel away for trees and grass.

That being said, I, Knuttel, am decreeing the border of North East and Far North East Philadelphia not to be Cottman Ave, but rather to be Pennypack creek. And while I'm on it, why can't the city's main source of public transportation, and really the only one (not counting the slow and overpriced regional rail) capable of launching one far distances, reach even Cottman Ave? It falls around 20 blocks short of it!! Academy and Grant, fine, whatevs, they're kinda far out from Center City, but Cottman is a major Philadelphia road, and it is not easily accessed by the incredibly under built civic transportation structure of the nation's fifth largest metropolitan area. To put this in contrast, the other end of the Market/Frankford line actually ends outside the city limits.

Alas, I digress.

The border shall be set at Pennypack because it actually does act as a border. Cottman attracts growth both ways towards it. After Pennypack, there really isn't that much of a difference in the outlay of the land until maybe as far as Croydon, at least through most of Bensalem. In fact, the border between Philadelphia and Bucks County can pass you by if you don't pay attention to it, and before you know it, the road you're on is no longer Frankford ave, but Bristol Pike.

Once one arrives in Levittown "proper" (simply to differentiate from Croydon), it is painfully obvious one is in the suburbs. This is also on purpose, it was John Levitt's plan all along. It has the side effect of halting the city merger of Trenton to Philadelphia, as Trenton's growth southward doesn't extend so much in it's own state, but rather across the river and into Morrisville. As Levittown is much smaller than it once was, population-wise, this actually turns into a benefit, as Levittown merely looks like a suburban wasteland, rather than an industrial one.

Heading back out again, things are mostly similar until one reaches the area of the Oxford Valley mall and the highways that surround it. It really is funny how things change on the other side of the tracks (in this case, actual tracks from the R3 line, as well as highways I-95 and Route 1).

Once the line is breached, gray gives way to green (and given time of year, that is kinda significant, as trees aren't in bloom yet). First one must go through Langhorne, which always felt a little strange to me. It just seems a little too developed to be that heavily forested. Anyways, getting past that, things really open up.

I dunno, maybe it's just a little hard to express, but imagine within an hour going from claustrophobic skycraping city to wide open fields. It plays with your senses a little bit, that's for certain.

and now for music.
isn't this the goal?



-- Knuttel

Film: The Final Frontier

So I recently took it upon myself to watch the first six "Star Trek" movies, you know the ones that starred the cast from TOS (the original series). Seven featured Kirk, and maybe a few others, but that was a handoff, largely dominated by the cast of TNG (the next generation).

god that sounds nerdy.

Moving on.

I skipped 1 cos it sucks. Oh noes, an alien probe?! Oh wait, the V'ger is really the Voyager space probe? Let me mind meld with it! Expendable captain, please sacrifice yourself for it.

Moving on.

Star Trek 2 is awesome. The Wrath Of Khan is basically a pirate movie in space, and is such an awesome movie, it should have legitimately been considered for many "real" awards, but alas it was both a sequel and sci fi. Plus, who could say no to Ricardo Montalban? One of the greatest lines in all of moviedom (well actually one, followed by the other.) Must see.



Classic.

Star Trek 3. There's not much to love, but there's also not much to hate. Oh wait, where did Kirstey Alley go? Irrelevant. Cheeseburger habits are demanding on the paycheck. Anyways, who knew Christopher Lloyd would get his break as a Klingon? FUN FACT: Christopher Lloyd's character in The Search For Spock has the same name as his character from Santa Buddies (so no, it's not a nod to A Christmas Carol (Kruge and Cruge), it's a nod to Star Trek).

Star Trek 4. Widely regarded as the Star Trek non-Star Trek fans like, it's ok. It also serves as one of the cornerstones of my knowledge of aquatic life, along with Free Willie, Jaws, and Moby Dick. The plot mainly revolves around stealing whales from the mom from "Seventh Heaven". Oh, I should mention they travelled back in time for this to happen, to San Francisco of the 1980s. Highlights include Scotty talking into a computer mouse and Chekov asking for "nuclear wessels". The funniest part is The Journey Home is really a reworking of Star Trek 1, in the larger general plot (unknown space probe travels through the galaxy and destroys a bunch of stuff, except this time it sounds like its trying to communicate with whales). To top it off, the overt political message about whale hunting comes off as tacked on. Whatevs, gotta nuke something.

Star Trek 5. For what it's worth, it's not awful. It basically is everything you'd expect Star Trek to be. Crazy Prophet takes over the Enterprise, turns out to be Spock's half brother, and wants to go to the center of the galaxy to find god.

I wish I was making that up. All things said, The Final Frontier was about as good as it could be, especially with Shatner directing it.

Star Trek 6. A whodunit in space, with waaaaaaay too much Shakespeare, for space. You mean you've never read Hamlet in its original Klignon? Also, it turns out it was the slutty one from "sex and the city" who ruined everything for everyone. Highlights include seeing Christopher Plummer and the dad from "that 70s show" as Klignons. Also the Undiscovered Country doesn't actually exist. It's just a mediocre metaphor for the future. The only highlight is a scene where Shatner fights a shapeshifter who shifted into Shatner. Shatner fighting Shatner. It's almost as good as Shatner fighting the Gorn in "The Arena".



So yeah. Not a waste of time. Just watch 2, 3, and 4 (which happen directly consecutively, and thus kinda make up a trilogy, though 5 happens not long after that.....). I recommend avoiding 1 and 6 at all costs though.

-- Knuttel

maybe later I'll do 7-10. 8 is the only one I can really say if it's good or not (and it's awesome, perhaps better than 2). Why did they never make a movie with the DS9 cast? Whatevs.

Feel Good-umentaries

What has happened to documentaries?

I realize that nothing can ever be truly objective, even the simple presentation of facts is always filtered by the mind which organizes them. But does every single modern documentary have to simply go for an emotional response?

OK, so not all the oscar winners and nominees were feel good stories, but the fact remains that they were all emotional. Even the documentary Food Inc., while producing a lot of fact filled moments and tried earnestly to expose wrongful practices of the large food industry, spent many many moments on emotional pieces, which usually didn't add anything major to the story.

In addition to this, The documentary awards (short and long) are often seen as a reflection of issues that hollywood, or the academy, care(s) about.

And so the winner for long documentary was a fluff piece (The Cove) about the Japanese practice of eating dolphins (and whales), and some of their methods of hunting. Sure, I don't personally agree with the eating of these animals, but I also come from a society where this is certainly not the norm, and really isn't accepted either. In Japan, there is a long history and tradition of eating these creatures, much like there is a tradition for them to eat other creatures of the sea. Japan is a series of islands, with alot of coastline, and not alot of land. It makes perfect sense they'd turn to the sea for sustinence. Alas, I digress. Possibly the thing that irks me the most about it is they don't have any regard at all for what Japan thinks of it. A good chunk of the movie was about how the locals were opposed to this film and how difficult it was for this film crew to get this message across to the world. (Good for you, thanks). OK, maybe the methods of hunting they use aren't that "humane", but frankly what is humane hunting anyway. These are probably the same idiots that want the deer population to starve themselves to death rather than get hunted down, cos it's natural -- nevermind that their natural predators haven't been in most of these areas for over 100 years. Goddamnit, I digress again.

Really the makers of this film come off as more ignorant than the people they're trying to portray. Even the title (The Cove) implies this is a secret and dirty act they are doing, and this is the only place this happens, and we, as responsible members of this western world, must be the ones to stop it.

It's like if a film crew went to Mexico to make a documentary about how the people are savages, making tacos instead of hamburgers.

What about Eskimo hunting? Is that OK? They hunt all sorts of sea mammals (which I'm assuming is the criteria for making this evil, being mammal). I can just imagine one of the producers trying to talk to an Inuit -- "Don't you know you can get all your protein sources from Soy and Soy byproducts? Where's your nearest Wholefoods?" "Geeeee, Thaaaaaaanks."

Like I said in my previous post, it's this total lack of self-awareness that makes the academy awards watchable.


Moral arguments are always the worst, simply because they lack universality. The world is not black and white, and fuck if it's always shaded in gray.


"Good sir, can you show me to that place where sea lions ride the waves to the shore?"

--Ok, one more picture. That's it, I swear.



Terrifying.

Anyways, onto the short documentary.

It got Kanye'd. Haha. It happens at the MTV awards, chalk it up to the zany nature. It happens at the academy awards? You betta bet there was some monocle droppage.

I'll try and put this together as fairly as possible. The documentary that won was about a woman in Africa who suffers from natural disfigurement, making her "tainted by witchcraft" amongst locals, that sings in a band, and to a lesser extent her band, who also suffer from deformities. There were originally two people involved in the direction/shooting of this short documentary or whatever, and naturally they had different ideas on what the direction was to be (oh, so that's what a director does). Anyways, one director wanted it to be about the woman, the other wanted it to be about the band. The one who wanted it to be about the woman won, and finished the movie listed as the director, and thus the recipient of the award. The other person, having contributed, managed to keep a role as producer in the credits, though largely maintained a position of disowning the film. The movie wins, and the director walks up and gives a speech. The other person crashes through (apparently to the protest of the director's 90 some year old mother, hah) and runs up, interrupts the speech only a few short words into it, and doesn't let the other dude finish.

So let me rephrase that. The director, who's documentary was his vision, gets cut out of his own acceptance speech by the partner who only the day prior had pretty much disowned any attachment to the project.

At least Beyonce was nominated for an award when the proceedings were interrupted on her behalf; and its probably less emotionally jarring for this to happen to a middle aged man than to an 18 year old girl.

BTW, last time a "major" motion picture, and not an "independent" film won best picture was only a few years ago with The Departed (2006). And possibly one of the "largest" films ever made, Return of the King (2003) has won recently, and blockbusters simply dominated in the late 90s. So, even with an expanded field, the academy can't pick one of its own major studio films to win the best picture award. Wow. I really question a lot here, but I'll leave this as it is.

You guys got enough pictures, no video.

-- Knuttel

Knuttel Watches The Academy Awards On An Hour Or Two Tape Delay

Sometimes I question why I do things. Sometimes, whatevs.

So why am I watching these awards if I have been such an outspoken critic of them and their relevance? Simple. It's such a large exercise in auto-fellation, that you just sit on the edge of your seat, waiting for that moment when something goes wrong, metaphorically when either that one muscle gets pulled, or if one flinches and bites. That is why.

That being said, I really don't care about who wins or any of that. I want to see just how self-indulgent these proceedings happen to be.

I know they expanded the "Best picture" award to 10 movies to try and incorporate more of the mainstream blockbuster movies.

But that's not the awards I know or want to see. I want to see the complete lack of shame or self awareness that caused them to expand the field to 10 pictures.

Will they be snorting the bones of third world orphans? One can hope.

Will any "genre" films get any of the big awards? Hah. The only genre that ever gets any of the big awards is the oscar bait genre itself. (Yes, it is its own genre).

And what's with all this genre bullshit anyways? And really you can't pin this on me for making a big deal about genre shit. They should've gotten their due as it arises. But no. Whatevs. Shits in the past, can't be changed, and it likely won't get resolved in the future.

I always go by this guideline -- 90% of everything (musically, literary, cinematically) is shit. 90% of drama, 90% of comedy, 90% of sci fi, 90% of metal, 90% of jazz, 90% of rap, 90% of romance, etc and so on. You get the picture.

So why are these mediocre movies getting all the pub and awards, when Star Trek doesn't even get nominated for best adapted screenplay?

Whatevs. I'll watch my movies, academy, and you can return to your ivory tower of neckbeard academia.

-- Knuttel

P.S. Best ever Movie Song. Doubt it was nominated.

Movement and Music

What is music? Besides a simple collection of notes or sounds or whatever, I think the answer is always personal. It has more to do with how one was introduced to music, how one listened to music, what they were exposed to; a list of likes and dislikes is never really quite simple.

For example: I hate Creed, but damnit if their first album isn't genius. Shit, I even have the two after that, in hopes they could re-catch that somehow. Alas, the singer was a douche.

For me music has always been about movement. I think it started in my middle school years. I had been subjected to painfully long busrides starting in 4th grade, and had a cd player in 5th (that I was subsequently banned from taking to school due to repeating harmless, though explicit, lyrics from a band I haven't listened to since, 311), so 6th grade was when this really started to expand and grow. It was also when I decided to pick up the guitar (fuck you high school and collegiate posers who only know the chords to "wonderwall", oasis sucks anyway). This connection just naturally developed. I was in motion and the music went in motion. The music went in motion as I went in motion. This would happen for hours a day, five days a week, all school year long.

And so naturally I gravitated to music that had a well defined notion of motion. Metal became an obvious choice for my middle school self, though naturally listening to rock radio of the late 90's, Metallica and Sabbath were often supplanted by Ozzy, Smashing Pumpkins, a slew of post-grunge bands, and the one blur album with "that woohoo song".

High School came along and naturally that led to more musical exploration. Again I had a painfully long bus ride, though only the return trip (we had to wait outside a different school for about an hour to pick those kids up). Metal was explored further, though often only nominally. Post-grunge quickly gave way to classic rock. Pink Floyd introduced me to atmospheric music, which is when I learned of my synesthesia. Atmospheric music introduced me to Radiohead. Radiohead introduced me to britpop. I refound my old blur cd(s I actually had 13 also, in anticipation of another "woohoo song") and subsequently found the entire blur catalog, just in time for their next release, Think Tank. In time I went back and searched for music from the original britpop band, The Beatles.

College came and I found jazz, which is nothing but movement. There is always a chord progression or a note progression or a scale progression. Something is always going on. Even in Free Jazz, it's just different kind of movements, movements of colors, shapes, feelings. Thus Jazz is "faster" than any kind metal, thrash, speed or otherwise.

Speaking of metal, this is also when the actual deep diving into the metal world began. What I listened to in middle school was but a wading. Funny thing is even then I knew hair metal sucked.

But all of this music I had listened to, all of it had a sense of motion to it, a sense of time, whether strict or abstract. Good music to me always knew when to move, how fast to move, when to stay still, for how long should it stay still, etc. "Echoes" has long been my favorite Pink Floyd song, because at the bridge, it simply just stops for 10 minutes, exploring its own cavernous space, and echoes itself back into the verse and chorus.

And for the music, a song which actually moves remarkably slow, which suits it much better than one would think.



-- Knuttel

PS. the current singer/songwriter who probably has the best sense of this is Lady GaGa.

Is Knuttel Really Talking About Tim Burton?

So Tim Burton has another re-make coming out soon. And it stars his usual cast, and I'm also going to presume Elfman is doing the score.

What should one make of his career?

He's spent virtually all of his career doing re-makes of one sort or another, and almost all of them are incredibly stylistically similar. So stylistically similar I often make the bad joke "I liked Edward Scissorhands the first time I saw it."

Basically every film he's done has either had a mid-20th century (50s-ish) or cheapened Victorian feel. Adding the 50s bit really makes it to include all of his films. The Victorian imagery style he uses is so gaudy and while stylistically true, so uncharacteristically Victorian, it just seems to cheapen the whole 19th century. I'd imagine many a steampunk enthusiast to abhor the coming of a Tim Burton film.

It's like he caught in some sort of permanent suburban mailaise, imagining up places he's never been, in a time he never will be a part of, with all the money Hollywood can throw at him.

I always thought it was a demand we have of our "artists" (something I'd always assume a good filmmaker to be) to progress with their work, or at the very least to not stand still. One must move about and explore. What can the medium do, what can it not do, where should we go, are there places we should refrain from going? These are questions one must ask. And no, "but it's in 3D" does not yet fully count unless one is really planning on exploring the medium (I heard Cameron did this in Avatar, but I don't have much interest in seeing it). As of now, I still see it as an expensive Hollywood excercise in survival.

Another note, something with which I disagree with him almost unequivocally -- Just because something is strange, bizarre, or even trippy does not mean that it is dark and possibly brooding. This trait of his has seemingly gotten worse in recent years, possibly due to the rise of emo music mid decade.

Even so, how can one say the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the original Planet of the Apes were not dark. Darkness is very much often hid amongst the light. In fact, the early music of Black Sabbath pretty much defined that sentance. Everyone remembers "Iron Man" and "Paranoid", but what about "Planet Caravan", "Laguna Sunrise", "Changes", and even "NIB" (which has a very positive message actually).



Maybe I'm just angry he lacks the proper respect one should have for an audience. He never challenges it, he simply expects them to show up when the time comes, hand over money to see his movie and possibly buy paraphanelia, and until then drool over press releases from the set.

-- Knuttel

Texas Tea

Forming amongst a loose coalition of protesters during last years tax season as a response to the bailouts, the "tea party" has since become something slightly more tangible.

Depending on who you ask, the Tea Party is either a small government (Libertarian) or 10th Amendment/state's rights (Statist) party. Regardless, both can agree that they want a smaller Federal government. This tieing in with the Libertarian boom of the last decade can cause a radical shift of the Party system as we know it. It could abandon the Republicans, to be doomed alone with the Christian right. It can rip the social liberals/apathetics from the Democratic party, leaving them alone with those in favor of large federal infrastructure.

But earlier this week was the first real test of their principals, and how they hold up via candidates, in the Texas State Primaries.

As the Tea Party doesn't have any real party affiliations, I think there were Tea Party representatives on both the Republican and Democratic Ballots. Given recent political history, this meant most of the candidates were on the Republican ballot.

Given recent political history, this meant most of these Tea Partiers were lined up against incumbents.

With the recession/depression/economic whatever, congress's dealings whith said whatever, and really congress's approval rating since 2006, you would think this would be to the incumbent's disadvantage. One must need only look to the McCain-Feingold reform to be instantly corrected on this silly mistake.

Congress has always had Franking privelages. This means they can mail stuff anywhere for free. This means any Congressman can simply spam newsletters and pamphlets whenever he wants. This is a significant cut on overhead that was invaluable in the days when people still used mail. Add this advantage to the McCain-Feingold act and, well it simply isn't fair. The bill puts a ceiling on the amount of money the candidate can accept from any single organization/person (different amounts in each case). This effectively makes it an even playing field, as far as funding is concerned.

The incumbent has the pleasure/displeasure of being known. They have recognition. All publicity is good publicity. Period. Plus, the incumbent already has a support infrastructure in place. They don't need to waste money on building their campaign process and plan. They already have that, or at least some semblance of it from previous campaigns. Newcomers start from scratch.

Well, it looks like I'm rambling a bit now about "campaign finance reform" and it's effects on actual campaigns, but I'm getting to my point, I swear.

The tea party candidates were blown out of the water.

They weren't close anywhere. Really.

The closest they might have done was disrupt Senator K Bailey Hutchinson's gubanatorial campaign. That's debatable, and it wasn't even under the dubious categorization of "vote stealing" (something which I will deny ever ever exists, you run your campaign on who else is running and you vote on who runs, to speculate other scenarios is reckless and irresponsible), but rather under the category of something more akin to a PAC taking apart a candidate. Think of it this way. She got swift boated -- except instead of for serving in Vietnam and earning a purple ehart, to be discredited by disillusioned veterans who may or may not have served for you, she had a very successful career as a congresswoman for Texas and was always able to pull money and projects back into her state/districts and was discredited for supporting the state of Texas by wasting the federal governments money on projects which may or may not have helped her state/districts.

My wording is awkward, but trust me, there's an analogy in there somewhere.

Regardless, I think this actually serves as a good example of the short term future of the party.

They will act as a PAC, or series of PAC's, rather than a party which runs successful candidates. This is the same strategy which has kept the ideals of the green party alive, as Ralph Nader's presidential campaign numbers continue to dwindle.

Given the nature of their party's politics and views, they should probably be advised to get some butts in the seats. They can act as an influencer, but if they actually want to change policy at their pace, they need to get their own representatives in government.

Both the parties of today were created upon single issues, really, so it's not entirely out of the question to say this party can't do it.

The Democratic party, while claiming ties back to the founding fathers (especially Jefferson), came into something more of their modern manifestation as the "vote for Andrew Jackson" party. There was really only one party then, but that's when the distinction was began between Democrat-Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats.

The Republican party has a much more cohesive tie to one single party. It was formed in the 1850's as an abolitionist party, and grew largely out of the ashes of the crumbling Whig Party, which refused to take an official party wide stance on the issue. At the end of the decade, they managed to put a President in the Oval Office, Abraham Lincoln.

So the question is will they be able to do it? Or even simply, will they try?

Ron Paul is a good bet for someone who has at least the capability to do it. He has drawn the ire of both the major parties, supports most of the Tea Party's central ideals, and has the support of the internet (which may only equal to one person in real life). Not to mention, if he can win his home state of Texas, well that would change the entire political landscape.

German Music Time!!



-- Knuttel

How Do You Open A Door On The Anatolian Peninsula?

With a Tur-key!

Hah, get it?

All kidding aside, something possibly momentous has occurred in American-Turkish relations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8550765.stm

Yeah, it is non-binding, and yeah Congress has yet to vote on it, but it's already stirred up some controversy.

Background information:
The land of Armenia had been under control of the Ottoman Empire. Being a Christian people, they were granted some rights, but not all the rights the Muslim Turks and Arabs were. World War I begins in 1914. The Ottoman Empire sided Germany and Austria-Hungary to form the Central Powers. Russia, on the north-eastern border of the empire, was part of the opposition. In 1915, several prominent Armenians were convicted of treason etc and accused of aiding the Russians (another Christian nation). This escalated to a very systematic effort to relocate and sometimes execute/massacre the Armenian population. This lasted until the later part of the decade, forcing many Armenians to run away and try and find places of refuge. The scale of the events was so comprehensive it actually caused the creation of the word "genocide". The government of the later Republic of Turkey (the Ottoman Empire dissolved very quickly thereafter) has maintained the stance that these actions were entirely military in nature and were not intended to eradicate the Armenian peoples. Similar actions were carried out to lesser extents to the other minorities on the Anatolian peninsula, notably Greeks and Assyrians, also Christian. This may have been the largest factor contributing to the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek diasporas. The total death count has been largely disputed, but it is largely recognized as the first modern genocide, similar to the later German Holocaust. As many as 20 countries have officially called these events the Armenian Genocide.

The United States of America has to now not officially taken a stance on the events, as Turkey has been a key ally of the past fifty years. In addition to its geographic importance over the years (proximity to the Soviet Union in the past, the Middle East, specifically Iraq, now) Turkey has one of the largest militaries in the world.

That being said, the majority of the Armenian diaspora went to either Russia or the USA, and the Armenian population of America has continuously fought to have the event recognized.

Regardless of the semantics involved in naming this event, it should at least be recognized in some capacity as more than a military event. -- I really do hate semantics like this. I once got a professor started on a tirade because I mentioned the conflict in the Balkans of the 90s as a genocide, when it was really just a type of conflict. I also got him started on another tirade because I referred to the Latino section of cultures or whatever as Hispanic.

Anyways, I see this turning out one of three ways.

1. Turkey mans up and calls it a genocide, and everyone except the Turks are happy.
2. Turkey blows up a bunch of smoke in the short term, but it doesn't really mean anything and they forget about it.
3. The nation suffers a backlash and goes stronger away from secularization (which itself has two sub-outcomes)
a. The military stages another coup and restores the secular Republic of Turkey.
b. The government simply becomes Muslim, and may even attempt to establish a caliphate.

It's kind of funny how something so "non-binding" can get people really upset.

-- Knuttel

Post-Olympic hangover stew

So a few things which have been stewing inside this head of mine, some of which happened during the Olympics, some after, mostly who cares.

I read an article about Warren Buffet on large CEO bonuses.
-It basically states that if the CEO is at a chance to earn the corporation large amounts of money, there shouldn't be anything against rewarding him for it. But when the CEO or other high ranking corporate officials are willing to gamble with their organization's equity so willy nilly, they should stand to lose money, or at the very least not get rewarded with such huge bonuses. Buffet went on to include the fact that up to 90 percent of his personal wealth is tied up in investments in his companies. Thus, Warren Buffet himself is very much at risk for losing huge amounts of money if he invests too riskily. He did take a decent hit during the economic downturn.

I largely agree with this. I always worked under the assumption that a company bonus was earned for good performance. Running a fortune 500 into bankruptcy, while quite an achievement, is not something to be rewarded with a bonus.

To state that this would drive away talent is ludicrous. The bonus is still there, it just has to be earned. And by guaranteeing it, you're actually telling these people that they can't achieve this. You're basically just throwing money at them and hoping the problems will get solved, much like the government does with public education.

And if these people truly are the gods among men they claim to be, these holy captains of industry, is there really a harm in letting them loose upon the other fields of our economy and infrastructure? Can not these captains pilot the small businesses, of whose virtues we often extol? Can not these gods of men lead our government, on scales local, state, and federal?

Or are they just another group of charlatans. A group of outcasts, clinging onto their wealth and worldly possessions?

If this is the case, why can't we simply cast them out of eden?

fuggem

-- btw, the article was from over the weekend, and i dont really feel like digging it up. so if you're interested, look it up.

The Cafferty report: how sunday night CNN makes my brain bleed
I could only take about 5 minutes of it, really. And it's not like they were entirely making bad points or asking bad questions, they weren't. It was just so bad.

The questions were asked at the wrong people. The points were made out of context. It was designed to make you angry at something (regarding the government likely), but it just made me mad at the formatting.

They did a piece on the congressional pension system, and how longterm congressmen (especially senators) can really rack up huge annual pensions (Chris Dodd's was in 6 figures).

But calling these congressmen themselves and asking why they are due to receive these pensions? These are the people that have earned, or at least felt like they earned them. Even if it is waaaay too much, do you think they are going to comment on it, or at least if they are, are they going to say something that pleases you?

Sure, maybe reform is to be had there, as reform can help many a things, but if you really want to make the point, you have to hit the right spot. Find the keystone of this pension arch, and tug at it until the thing collapses. Until then you're just throwing rocks.

Healthcare: The return
They couldn't get it done the first time, so here they are to fail again.

Really, they get nothing done as far as healthcare, or even insurance reform is concerned unless some sort of public option is to be included. Making sure everyone is elgible for an insurance that has a ceiling rate is great and all for everyone, but in the greater scheme of things, it passes on the cost of liabilities of those lesser health. And making it illegal not to be covered would simply mean a much higher cost for someone of awesome health, such as I. At the very least, make the age for insurance dependency higher than 18. College extends it for most to 22, but even then, most starting jobs, regardless of where you came, don't initially offer insurance. Some entry level positions simply don't offer benefits. Most companies you have to work there for a few months.

That's time you're unisured, and time you would be forced to have insurance.

And for all of this, Speaker Pelosi gives herself an A.

fugger. really.

-- Knuttel

double feature of music. descending progression that gets stuck in your head like mad and possibly the greatest example of shoegazing ever made.





night