http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/sports/football/25needle.html
In summary, American Needle wants to make NFL apparel. The NFL has an exclusive apparel deal with Reebok, creating the sub-brand "Equipment NFL" (the first step towards my boycott, laid years before). American Needle says this agreement is collusion and therefore illegal; they should too be able to make NFL apparel. Lower courts agree. NFL appeals to the supreme court, stating they should have an anti-trust exemption (MLB has one, no other sports league does) because they are not 32 individual teams, but rather one league. The Supreme Court disagrees and says they are 32 individual teams who sometimes share similar goals.
What does this mean?
It means, potentially, that teams can decide their own commercial ventures, instead of those bequeathed by the league. It means an exclusive apparel deal, like the one in collusion with Reebok, is potentially illegal.
It means, if I happen to end my NFL boycott in a few years, and the Reebok deal is no more, I may be able to purchase a replica football jersey -- I only have a Corey Simon jersey I got when he was a rookie on the Eagles, and a "vintage" Eagles Reggie White jersey, which I may actually suspect is reebok or whatevs (which makes it inauthentic, Eagles didn't have an agreement with Reebok then) but it was a gift.
But perhaps finally this madness will come to an end. I do believe (I say believe because I am unable to actually produce any sort of empirical evidence for this) that the price of NFL team hats (the product market which American Needle wishes to jump into) has risen above the rate of inflation since the deal was struck with Reebok.
Isn't it the goal of a team like the St. Louis Rams to sell more hats or other apparel than, say, the Chicago Bears? How can they do this when the deal is all set up under the guise of the league acting as one.
Try telling the (insert team who lost the Super Bowl last year, or really any team that didn't even make it to the game) that they won the Super Bowl, cos the League won the Super Bowl. It doesn't work like that.
And if the league has an anti-trust exemption, then how come rival leagues have come and gone? The USFL in the 80s, the XFL in the 90s, the UFL currently, and what about all the arena leagues?
I know Paul "I don't care about old player's health coverage and pensions" Tagliabue was the one who signed the deal with Reebok, but damnit if roger goodell wasn't hell bent on expanding it and making sure it stays in place. I mean, Quarterback gets off the field, wants to take his helmet off on the sidelines, has to put on the "new officual quarterback's hat, by Reebok", come one, and it goes down the line of pretty much all the "skill" positions.
It could also potentially mean a lot for the upcoming collective bargaining agreement. What, I'm not sure, since I don't know anything about collective bargaining.
-- Knuttel
5.28.2010
5.27.2010
ESPN and BCS in bed
Yes, it is true. I do believe that I have written of their partnership in the past, and may have even commented on the "pro-bcs" commentary during the "national championship" as a definite downside.
But now, in what can only be called the off-season, ESPN's College Football live takes shots at bcs naysayers.
Boise State's President outright slammed the bcs in a recent statement. Attacking the notion that "every game counts", he states:
"But how do Boise State’s games count under the BCS when four of the past six years we went undefeated in the regular season, and yet never even came close to having an opportunity to compete for the national championship? How did all of those games, and all of those perfect records, count under the BCS? In fact, in two of those four undefeated regular seasons, Boise State was foreclosed from even playing in a major bowl."
The statement was also wrapped around revenue issues, showing how the Mountain West and WAC (the conference which Boise State is in) have higher TV Ratings, higher rankings, and higher game attendances than the ACC and Big East, yet the ACC and Big East receive 19 Mil in Bowl revenues yearly, The Mountain West and WAC getting 9 mil if they make the big bowls.
This made headlines on College Football live, and instead of having at least a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of either situation (with or without the bcs), they simply take turns bashing the idea that there could be anything resembling a national champion without the bcs, and come to the conclusion that the President of Boise State must be a lunatic.
Before ESPN, and its family of networks (actually the ABC/Disney family of networks) got their hands on a big portion of the bcs pie, they never made a huge deal about the "awesomeness" that is the bcs, and how we would all be wandering nomads in the desert without its brilliance, guidance, and wisdom. Sure, they were invested in the bowl system, but it wasn't uncommon for commentators to say "hey, maybe the champion should be decided through a playoff, but hey, there's no reason we have to get rid of this great bowl system we have."
They could at least get half way there.
Now they are miles away. The only way this could seemingly get fixed is if legal action is taken. I don't want that to have to happen, because the people who won't read about how bad the bcs really is, are the people who only watch ESPN for their sports news, are the people hate government intervention of any kind (save for their welfare checks). So naturally, they will assume the bcs was given to us by God, and his prophet, Lee Corso, and the government is trying to take away all that is holy in college sports.
Come on, this isn't Europe! We don't have a series of tiered leagues, with a points system tied to relegations and promotions. We don't decide who the winner of a league is by points total at the end of the year (the NHL has the President's trophy, but the winner of that definitely does not always win the Stanley Cup). And perhaps most importantly, we don't have an over-reaching Police State watching our every move and locking us away when we say something benignly offensive to the regime.
Fuck the Queen.
See, say it along with me. It's liberating. And it's American.
Why can't there be a civil debate about how we should go about replacing the bcs (cos anyone with half a brain could tell you having the bcs would be a wrong move)?
http://news.boisestate.edu/blog/2010/05/25/statement-of-boise-state-university-president-robert-kustra-regarding-bcs-revenue-discrimination/
-- Knuttel
But now, in what can only be called the off-season, ESPN's College Football live takes shots at bcs naysayers.
Boise State's President outright slammed the bcs in a recent statement. Attacking the notion that "every game counts", he states:
"But how do Boise State’s games count under the BCS when four of the past six years we went undefeated in the regular season, and yet never even came close to having an opportunity to compete for the national championship? How did all of those games, and all of those perfect records, count under the BCS? In fact, in two of those four undefeated regular seasons, Boise State was foreclosed from even playing in a major bowl."
The statement was also wrapped around revenue issues, showing how the Mountain West and WAC (the conference which Boise State is in) have higher TV Ratings, higher rankings, and higher game attendances than the ACC and Big East, yet the ACC and Big East receive 19 Mil in Bowl revenues yearly, The Mountain West and WAC getting 9 mil if they make the big bowls.
This made headlines on College Football live, and instead of having at least a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of either situation (with or without the bcs), they simply take turns bashing the idea that there could be anything resembling a national champion without the bcs, and come to the conclusion that the President of Boise State must be a lunatic.
Before ESPN, and its family of networks (actually the ABC/Disney family of networks) got their hands on a big portion of the bcs pie, they never made a huge deal about the "awesomeness" that is the bcs, and how we would all be wandering nomads in the desert without its brilliance, guidance, and wisdom. Sure, they were invested in the bowl system, but it wasn't uncommon for commentators to say "hey, maybe the champion should be decided through a playoff, but hey, there's no reason we have to get rid of this great bowl system we have."
They could at least get half way there.
Now they are miles away. The only way this could seemingly get fixed is if legal action is taken. I don't want that to have to happen, because the people who won't read about how bad the bcs really is, are the people who only watch ESPN for their sports news, are the people hate government intervention of any kind (save for their welfare checks). So naturally, they will assume the bcs was given to us by God, and his prophet, Lee Corso, and the government is trying to take away all that is holy in college sports.
Come on, this isn't Europe! We don't have a series of tiered leagues, with a points system tied to relegations and promotions. We don't decide who the winner of a league is by points total at the end of the year (the NHL has the President's trophy, but the winner of that definitely does not always win the Stanley Cup). And perhaps most importantly, we don't have an over-reaching Police State watching our every move and locking us away when we say something benignly offensive to the regime.
Fuck the Queen.
See, say it along with me. It's liberating. And it's American.
Why can't there be a civil debate about how we should go about replacing the bcs (cos anyone with half a brain could tell you having the bcs would be a wrong move)?
http://news.boisestate.edu/blog/2010/05/25/statement-of-boise-state-university-president-robert-kustra-regarding-bcs-revenue-discrimination/
-- Knuttel
5.18.2010
THE CHAMPIONS
:cue awful champions league theme song:
I dunno, maybe I don't get it cos I'm not one of those fancy pants European types.
Maybe I don't get it cos I'm also aware of the CONCACAF Champions League, in addition to the UEFA version (I don't think I hear them say UEFA, in either abbreviations or in full during the song).
In any case, I digress.
This Saturday (a step up from last year, when it was Wednesday) Bayern Munich and Internazionale Milan will meet in the Champions League finals. The game will be held in Madrid, Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, the field of Real Madrid.
Real Madrid was, for many decades, a willing acceptor of privileges at the behest of the Franko dictatorship. This means that many of their titles should be considered null and void, or at the very least include asterisks. While many Champions League level teams boast many international studs, the Real Madrid teams that won the first decade of Champions League play was basically the Spanish national squad.
They have played against one another 4 times, twice as a result of being in the same group in the 88-89 UEFA Cup, the other two as a result of being in the same group in the 2006-2007 UEFA Champions League. The record stands as 2 wins for Bayern, 1 win for Inter, 1 draw.
Bayern Munich has won the Champions League 4 times, the last time being 2001, and has been the runner up 3 times.
Internazionale Milan has won the Champions league twice, the last time being in 1965, and has been the runner up another two times. All of these were achieved by using Catenazzio, a strategy that uses boredom to lull the refs, spectators, and sometimes the other team asleep.
Both of these teams are going for the treble, having both won their league titles by points and by the league cup.
Both of these teams are most notable for carrying all time soccer great, legend, and sometimes alter-ego of the Knuttel, Lothar Matthaus, for extended periods of time. Lothar had two stints with Bayern Munich -- 1984-1988, 1992-2000. He had one stint with Internazionale in the meantime -- 1988-1992.
So who wins the game? BREAKDOWN
History in the Champions League final -- Bayern
Geographic proximity to Madrid -- Inter
Tenure of Lothar Matthaus -- Bayern
Not having Marco Matterazi -- Bayern
Goalkeeping -- Inter
Defense -- Bayern (by a hair)
Counter-attack -- Bayern
Mid Field -- Bayern
Forwards -- Inter
Bayern 6 - Inter 3
It is closer than it looks though. This game, by no means, should be a runaway. The stregnths of Bayerns Center defense, attacking outside backs, and midfield should be enough to keep Inter busy. If they can get through, their forwards are better (forwards plural, I do realize Bayern has Klose, just little else), and their more experienced goal keeper should keep Bayern at bay.
As long as the game doesn't devolve into the Cattenazzio that Inter made famous in the 60s, the game should be enjoyable.
-- Knuttel
I dunno, maybe I don't get it cos I'm not one of those fancy pants European types.
Maybe I don't get it cos I'm also aware of the CONCACAF Champions League, in addition to the UEFA version (I don't think I hear them say UEFA, in either abbreviations or in full during the song).
In any case, I digress.
This Saturday (a step up from last year, when it was Wednesday) Bayern Munich and Internazionale Milan will meet in the Champions League finals. The game will be held in Madrid, Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, the field of Real Madrid.
Real Madrid was, for many decades, a willing acceptor of privileges at the behest of the Franko dictatorship. This means that many of their titles should be considered null and void, or at the very least include asterisks. While many Champions League level teams boast many international studs, the Real Madrid teams that won the first decade of Champions League play was basically the Spanish national squad.
They have played against one another 4 times, twice as a result of being in the same group in the 88-89 UEFA Cup, the other two as a result of being in the same group in the 2006-2007 UEFA Champions League. The record stands as 2 wins for Bayern, 1 win for Inter, 1 draw.
Bayern Munich has won the Champions League 4 times, the last time being 2001, and has been the runner up 3 times.
Internazionale Milan has won the Champions league twice, the last time being in 1965, and has been the runner up another two times. All of these were achieved by using Catenazzio, a strategy that uses boredom to lull the refs, spectators, and sometimes the other team asleep.
Both of these teams are going for the treble, having both won their league titles by points and by the league cup.
Both of these teams are most notable for carrying all time soccer great, legend, and sometimes alter-ego of the Knuttel, Lothar Matthaus, for extended periods of time. Lothar had two stints with Bayern Munich -- 1984-1988, 1992-2000. He had one stint with Internazionale in the meantime -- 1988-1992.
So who wins the game? BREAKDOWN
History in the Champions League final -- Bayern
Geographic proximity to Madrid -- Inter
Tenure of Lothar Matthaus -- Bayern
Not having Marco Matterazi -- Bayern
Goalkeeping -- Inter
Defense -- Bayern (by a hair)
Counter-attack -- Bayern
Mid Field -- Bayern
Forwards -- Inter
Bayern 6 - Inter 3
It is closer than it looks though. This game, by no means, should be a runaway. The stregnths of Bayerns Center defense, attacking outside backs, and midfield should be enough to keep Inter busy. If they can get through, their forwards are better (forwards plural, I do realize Bayern has Klose, just little else), and their more experienced goal keeper should keep Bayern at bay.
As long as the game doesn't devolve into the Cattenazzio that Inter made famous in the 60s, the game should be enjoyable.
-- Knuttel
Lack of Responsibility and Oversight
Lack of responsibility and oversight, this may been seen to be an issue with corporations, but it is indeed also an issue with the elected officials of our government.
But elections keep them in check, no?
Well, they do to a certain extent, but it's a system that's far to easy to go around.
First of all, the "one and done," a politician who only runs for one term, he can do whatever he wants. He has no stake in becoming re-electable. Depending on the office, or sometimes nothing at all, this can be a good thing or a bad thing -- as he can either ignore public opinion entirely just to get something that wouldn't otherwise be done, or he can raid the government's coffers for his friends, family, and self.
But that's a small issue, really. The bigger issue is the Party system, and how it stays afloat.
First, in order to get elected, the candidate likely needs support of the larger party infrastructure. Thus, if the candidate is moderate (or even on the "opposite" side of the spectrum) he must radicalize himself in at least small regards to get actual support for his campaign.
Second, he must likely win a primary, where he is only competing for votes amongst his party. Needless to say, this means the winner will much more likely be on the far wing of his party than on the moderate side of politics in general (which would actually make him the extremist in this group). The other party's candidate will likely win in the same manner.
Third, this creates a scenario where a left winger will likely be running against a right winger. In parts of the country where the one party is weaker, this opposite candidate might actually be a moderate, which actually creates competition in these areas, so long as the dominant party isn't too dominant. In any case, this creates an "us against them" mentality among supporters of the candidates. You are either for the candidate or against them, there is no middle ground, no one votes for independents (very rare exceptions to this rule).
Now, fourthly, someone on either edge of the spectrum has now won, and will attempt to push through his radicalized agenda, with the help of his even more radicalized party. If a moderate happens to slip through the cracks in this stage, he must now adopt a more radical stance than the one he ran on, in order to get party support for his projects, otherwise he will be an extremely unproductive "voter" who does nothing for the people who elected him.
At the heart of this issue is the primary system. Most states use a closed primary system, such as my own state of Pennsylvania. As an independent, I cannot partake in anything happening at all today (which is primary voting day), and can only watch in bemusement. I like the idea of the primary, as the people are selecting who will represent their side. But the ultimate resolution is this man will support their side, and likely not much else. There will be no candidate to stride the divide, unite the people and work for something that will work for everybody.
The primary system forced long tenured Connecticut Senator Lieberman to run as an independent a few years ago, and now he's not nearly as endeared to the party's base as he once was. This year it forced Crist, the Senate candidate in Florida, to run as an independent. Even more, he had to declare his independence way before the primary (which I think is also happening today).
It may also force Arlen Specter out of office. He has been Pennsylvania's Senator for I want to say five terms. For the most of that time, he was a Republican the Democrats in the state could vote for. Now, since he switched parties, he's just a Democrat not all the Democrats will vote for. He was forced out due to radicalization within his own party -- Pat Toomey would have been very likely to beat him in the Republican primaries (he kept getting closer and closer). Now Democrats are running Admiral Joe Sestak against him, which bugs me even more because I like Joe Sestak.
Aside: why do the Democrats of Pennsylvania only run good candidates against Arlen Specter? Seriously? In 2004, Joe Hoeffel was run against him, a candidate I would have loved to see in office, but I did not want to see Specter go. Now, in 2010, Joe Sestak is running against him, and I would also kinda like to see him in the Senate seat. Meanwhile, in 2006, Rick Santorum, who by then had made enough gaffs to make Joe Biden blush and was clearly on his way out, had only to run against Bob Casey, a boring "moderate" (a democrat who loves to spend the tax payers money but hates killing babies) who had only held the positions auditor general and state treasurer; his family was also very political (his dad was Governor of Pennsylvania), making him an insider even if he didn't do anything. I believe Sestak was still in the Navy at this point, but why couldn't Hoeffel run against Santorum?
Whatevs.
Todays primaries will likely be very amusing at the least. Perhaps we can see how much pull the new tea party has, as Rand Paul (seriously, who names their kid after a crappy author) might take his primary in Kentucky. There'll probably be a recap of the results later on.
But elections keep them in check, no?
Well, they do to a certain extent, but it's a system that's far to easy to go around.
First of all, the "one and done," a politician who only runs for one term, he can do whatever he wants. He has no stake in becoming re-electable. Depending on the office, or sometimes nothing at all, this can be a good thing or a bad thing -- as he can either ignore public opinion entirely just to get something that wouldn't otherwise be done, or he can raid the government's coffers for his friends, family, and self.
But that's a small issue, really. The bigger issue is the Party system, and how it stays afloat.
First, in order to get elected, the candidate likely needs support of the larger party infrastructure. Thus, if the candidate is moderate (or even on the "opposite" side of the spectrum) he must radicalize himself in at least small regards to get actual support for his campaign.
Second, he must likely win a primary, where he is only competing for votes amongst his party. Needless to say, this means the winner will much more likely be on the far wing of his party than on the moderate side of politics in general (which would actually make him the extremist in this group). The other party's candidate will likely win in the same manner.
Third, this creates a scenario where a left winger will likely be running against a right winger. In parts of the country where the one party is weaker, this opposite candidate might actually be a moderate, which actually creates competition in these areas, so long as the dominant party isn't too dominant. In any case, this creates an "us against them" mentality among supporters of the candidates. You are either for the candidate or against them, there is no middle ground, no one votes for independents (very rare exceptions to this rule).
Now, fourthly, someone on either edge of the spectrum has now won, and will attempt to push through his radicalized agenda, with the help of his even more radicalized party. If a moderate happens to slip through the cracks in this stage, he must now adopt a more radical stance than the one he ran on, in order to get party support for his projects, otherwise he will be an extremely unproductive "voter" who does nothing for the people who elected him.
At the heart of this issue is the primary system. Most states use a closed primary system, such as my own state of Pennsylvania. As an independent, I cannot partake in anything happening at all today (which is primary voting day), and can only watch in bemusement. I like the idea of the primary, as the people are selecting who will represent their side. But the ultimate resolution is this man will support their side, and likely not much else. There will be no candidate to stride the divide, unite the people and work for something that will work for everybody.
The primary system forced long tenured Connecticut Senator Lieberman to run as an independent a few years ago, and now he's not nearly as endeared to the party's base as he once was. This year it forced Crist, the Senate candidate in Florida, to run as an independent. Even more, he had to declare his independence way before the primary (which I think is also happening today).
It may also force Arlen Specter out of office. He has been Pennsylvania's Senator for I want to say five terms. For the most of that time, he was a Republican the Democrats in the state could vote for. Now, since he switched parties, he's just a Democrat not all the Democrats will vote for. He was forced out due to radicalization within his own party -- Pat Toomey would have been very likely to beat him in the Republican primaries (he kept getting closer and closer). Now Democrats are running Admiral Joe Sestak against him, which bugs me even more because I like Joe Sestak.
Aside: why do the Democrats of Pennsylvania only run good candidates against Arlen Specter? Seriously? In 2004, Joe Hoeffel was run against him, a candidate I would have loved to see in office, but I did not want to see Specter go. Now, in 2010, Joe Sestak is running against him, and I would also kinda like to see him in the Senate seat. Meanwhile, in 2006, Rick Santorum, who by then had made enough gaffs to make Joe Biden blush and was clearly on his way out, had only to run against Bob Casey, a boring "moderate" (a democrat who loves to spend the tax payers money but hates killing babies) who had only held the positions auditor general and state treasurer; his family was also very political (his dad was Governor of Pennsylvania), making him an insider even if he didn't do anything. I believe Sestak was still in the Navy at this point, but why couldn't Hoeffel run against Santorum?
Whatevs.
Todays primaries will likely be very amusing at the least. Perhaps we can see how much pull the new tea party has, as Rand Paul (seriously, who names their kid after a crappy author) might take his primary in Kentucky. There'll probably be a recap of the results later on.
5.17.2010
New Sheeit
Ok, so it's been over a month since my last "real" post.
that will soon amended be!
Have been working on a short story (too long to post here, i guess), so that has been taking up my time.
it is almost over
world happenings!
-- Knuttel
that will soon amended be!
Have been working on a short story (too long to post here, i guess), so that has been taking up my time.
it is almost over
world happenings!
-- Knuttel
5.01.2010
4.04.2010
The Aesthetics of Music
Genres of music, I have found, are more often divided by their aesthetic than by their actual sound. Oddly enough, this proves to be more useful, as using the combination of sound with the aesthetics creates a more encompassing and complete definition of a particular style of music as an actual cultural movement or event.
Case in point -- hair metal is not metal.
Aesthetically, there are no similarities at all. Musically, there are distorted guitars, which also exist in other types of music. Culturally there is the lifestyle of debauchery, which while sometimes associated with metal, is really more indicative of the successes of popular music in general.
Its insistence that it is part of the metal scene bugs me to no end.
Let me put it this way. In America in the 1980s, there was mainly two styles of "metal" -- hair metal and thrash metal. Put on any Metallica/Megadeth/Anthrax/Slayer/Exodus/Testament album from 1982-1990 and compare it to the output of bands like Motley Crue and Poison from the same time period.
They are clearly not of the same genre, no matter how you look at it. Even with all of the wide encompassing definitions of metal music, hair metal is not metal.
The way I see it, metal is a type of music defined by a lack of comfort. It's loaded with dissonance and distortion, sometimes syncopation and staccato. It's meant to keep you on edge. Thematically, in fact, the lyrics are often on edge. Hair metal is the exact opposite of that. Not only is the music "comfortable" but it is often about getting more "comfort".
And again, radio has ruined the definition. The only kind of metal which regularly gets played on the radio is hair metal. The only thrash band that gets played is really Metallica, and even then its mostly their 90s rock stuff. Megadeth, really only the song "trust" in the year 1998 or whatever; Anthrax and Slayer, forget about it, unless some dude's been bugging the dj for about a week. And then besides that, really only the "classics", like Sabbath (but only the album Paranoid) or Zepellin (more of the classic rocky stuff, less of the metal stuff).
I could probably rant on this for alot longer, but im pretty tired. fuck. damn hair metal.
Now for some real fucking metal (pete, I don't think you can see these videos on buzz)
-- Knuttel
Case in point -- hair metal is not metal.
Aesthetically, there are no similarities at all. Musically, there are distorted guitars, which also exist in other types of music. Culturally there is the lifestyle of debauchery, which while sometimes associated with metal, is really more indicative of the successes of popular music in general.
Its insistence that it is part of the metal scene bugs me to no end.
Let me put it this way. In America in the 1980s, there was mainly two styles of "metal" -- hair metal and thrash metal. Put on any Metallica/Megadeth/Anthrax/Slayer/Exodus/Testament album from 1982-1990 and compare it to the output of bands like Motley Crue and Poison from the same time period.
They are clearly not of the same genre, no matter how you look at it. Even with all of the wide encompassing definitions of metal music, hair metal is not metal.
The way I see it, metal is a type of music defined by a lack of comfort. It's loaded with dissonance and distortion, sometimes syncopation and staccato. It's meant to keep you on edge. Thematically, in fact, the lyrics are often on edge. Hair metal is the exact opposite of that. Not only is the music "comfortable" but it is often about getting more "comfort".
And again, radio has ruined the definition. The only kind of metal which regularly gets played on the radio is hair metal. The only thrash band that gets played is really Metallica, and even then its mostly their 90s rock stuff. Megadeth, really only the song "trust" in the year 1998 or whatever; Anthrax and Slayer, forget about it, unless some dude's been bugging the dj for about a week. And then besides that, really only the "classics", like Sabbath (but only the album Paranoid) or Zepellin (more of the classic rocky stuff, less of the metal stuff).
I could probably rant on this for alot longer, but im pretty tired. fuck. damn hair metal.
Now for some real fucking metal (pete, I don't think you can see these videos on buzz)
-- Knuttel
3.27.2010
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
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
3.25.2010
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.
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.
3.20.2010
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.
3.19.2010
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
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
3.15.2010
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
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.
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.
3.14.2010
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.
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
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
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
3.12.2010
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
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
3.08.2010
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)