The View Inside

London, Patriot Act, and New York

2005-07-22T06:30:00.000-07:00

There are a few news items from the past few weeks that have driven me to a point of near-insanity. I have to vent somewhere, and that somewhere is here.

1. London Bombings/Shooting: London was hit twice and this morning they shot a man in a subway who was wearing a heavy coat in 70-degree weather and running from the police. Two things that make me crazy related to this whole situation:

One, the reporter(s) who kept asking Blair if his government/policies/mother/reading habits were responsible for the attacks on London. Now I'm no terror expert, but I would probably blame the bombings on THE TERRORISTS! Why do we have this agenda to find some reason for their insane hatred? Guess what- there is no reason. It's not 9/11, it's not Iraq, and if you think it is, you're ignoring all of the terrorist attacks that took place before those events by the same groups we're facing now. They hate us. They've hated us for years, they will hate us for years to come, and that's the end of it. Anything that they point to as "reasoning" is a smokescreen.

Two, the article on the shooting this morning indicated that police would have to justify shooting the man this morning and that certain people were nervous after the shooting. Let me save the police some time and handle this for them: THE IDIOT RAN AWAY FROM THE POLICE IN A SUBWAY WHERE BOMBINGS HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE. Here's a simple formula: police + heightened security concern + request to stop = DO NOT RUN, STUPID. Now the nervous people can relax.

2. Patriot Act: The House came to its senses and passed the Patriot Act on to the Senate. The debate on this one was enough to send my blood pressure through the roof. If I hear one more politician proclaim that the Patriot Act turns America into a different country than they know, or some stupid statement to that extent, I will put my foot through the television. Guess what- this isn't the America you think you know, liberal politician. You think you live in a country, not to mention a world, where everybody will just get along and love each other and we can all expect to have nobody bother us or inconvenience us or make us uncomfortable. I live in a country where people next door may be planning to bomb a bus, or working on a plan to hijack another plane. They look like everybody else, they don't announce their intentions, and we don't know them until they strike- unless we can look into some of the things that the Patriot Act allows. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from this act, and I would rather be uncomfortable (although who really cares if the feds look at their library records anyway) and alive than dead from the next attack.

3. New York Searches: New York police begin random searches today at transportation hubs. It's about time, people. Of course the New York Times got to the heart of the matter in an article from yesterday, when they pointed out that 1) people didn't like the searches and 2) no racial profiling would be allowed. On the first point, who cares? I like being alive. I think that trumps how much I may or may not like my bag being searched. And again, who really cares about this? Search my bag. I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. If you don't either, stop whining.

On the second point, why are we not profiling? Apart from all the rhetoric as to why profiling is evil, biased and generally not nice, no one has asked the million-dollar question- does it work? Yes, it does. I'm tired of this knee-jerk opposition to profiling that comes due to the fact that we have elevated "tolerance" and "diversity" to levels of importance higher than "life" and "safety." If white Americans of German descent were suicide bombing and plotting against the US, I would expect to be stopped more often, asked more questions, searched, whatever. As a law-abiding citizen who loves this country, I would not care. I don't care n0w when they search me at every airport I visit. I'm happy to prove to them that I have nothing to hide. If it keeps us safer, we should do it. If that means we search more people of Arabic descent than white people, so what? More Arabic people than white people are trying to kill us. I think it's biased to search more white people than would be representative of the percentage of white people in the terrorist pool. If 97% of known suicide bombers and terrorists are not white (or 80%, or whatever), only 3% of searches should be of white people. Any other approach is biased, in my opinion. But guess what- if they want to search me, I will gladly let them do so.

At the end of the day, freedom is at stake. Not the petty, self-centered personal freedom that we constantly hear about, but the freedom to live and pursue a safe, productive life. Those are the inalienable rights our founders spoke of, and those rights are the ones that we must protect first. Anything beyond that is a luxury, and at this point in history, our luxuries need to be re-examined and de-prioritized.

Quick Hits

2005-05-24T06:56:00.000-07:00

Brief commentary on recent items:

No Filibuster: The Senate decided to stop acting like children and do their job (both sides of the aisle). We'll see how serious they are about that when Supreme Court seats open up.

American Idol: Finale tonight. Quote of the day from the NY Daily News site regarding the finalists: "She's a Nashville striver so plastic she makes Shania Twain seem like she was born in a holler. He's a should-be lounge singer who somehow mistook himself for a member of Lynyrd Skynyrd." That said, go Bo!

Star Wars Episode III: Saw it yesterday- good movie overall. However, the armchair philosophy is almost as painful as the lack of chemistry between Anakin and Padme. "Only the Sith think in absolutes." Isn't that an absolute statement? And if so, why are we to believe the Sith are evil? That's an "absolute" judgment that the Jedi Council made...

Hilton Overload: So now mother Hilton has a "reality" show trying to make the uncouth into socialites? If her daughters are any indication of the end result, I'll take my chances with the rednecks. I've never seen people so rich that have such a driving need to also be famous and/or relevant. Please stop supporting their complex.

Video Game Wars: Sony and Microsoft released solid info on their next-gen systems at E3. Will Sony be able to realize the specs they're touting? Will Microsoft capitalize on first-mover advantage and Christmas shoppers? Either way, the battle is heating up. My money's on Gates and company. This is what they do, folks. Get into the market, learn from their mistakes, buy innovation, and crush opponents. The only question is if it will take them one more go-round before they get it nailed.

That's it for now. Back soon with comic book commentary.

The Economics of Oil

2005-04-28T06:02:00.000-07:00

My economics post was delayed, but I offer it up now. I had my two last major graduate projects to handle Tuesday and Wednesday, but they are now behind me. So on to the economics of oil.

I have to speak to this topic because of some of the stupid things that have been said on the subject lately. Now I don't claim to be an expert on the oil industry, but I do have a pretty good understanding of economics and international trade. I give that disclaimer in case any of my statements do not apply as presented to the specifics of the oil of the industry. I imagine they do though.

1. Refineries aren't the issue. Saudi Arabia's spinmeister came out this week with the brilliant statement that shipping 10 or 20 million barrels of oil to the US wouldn't affect prices if we couldn't refine it. Sure, our refineries are old and need to be replaced or added to. I agree. But if that's the problem, how did those same refineries function two years ago when prices were half of what they are now? The problem is the price of oil per barrel, which is impacted by only two things- supply and demand. We know demand is higher. We know supply is not, at least not at a meaningful level. I think we can figure out the rest from there.

2. We need to stop burying our heads in the sand and start drilling it for oil. ANWR is not the answer, but it's a step in the right direction. The problem with ANWR is that the distribution infrastructure is not in place and will need to be developed for any drilling there to be profitable to the oil companies and beneficial to us. We need to be drilling the Gulf of Mexico. Lease Sale 181 opened some of the Gulf for oil leases, but the opened area was only 1/4 of the original size proposed by whom? That's right kids- the Clinton administration. Open up the Gulf for drilling. Distribution would be a dream and it's been estimated that the reserves under the Gulf are substantial. Environmentalists of course decry the "inevitable" oil slicks and pollution. Funny thing about oil slicks- they occur naturally as well due to seeping of oil and gas through natural fissures because of the pressure of the reserves. But we ignore that fact. We can't have it both ways, folks. We either have our happy environmentalists and our high oil prices (or expensive alternative fuels that are inefficient and underdeveloped at this point) or we have lower fuel prices and a stronger economy in which to develop alternative fuel sources. I'm not opposed to alternatives. I just realize that they'll take time and money to develop, and unless we do something about our current energy prices, we won't have much of either to work with.

That's my rant for the day. Back tomorrow.

Back from the Dead

2005-04-25T07:31:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been a while. Graduate work snowed me under in the past several months, but the end is in sight. Two weeks from now I will have completed my program. Upon the recommendation of my best friend, I will begin requiring people to refer to me as "Master" until I decide to complete doctoral work. Why doesn't it work that way?

A lot to comment on and little time, but I'll begin with the new pope. This seems to be a great topic of interest and a divisive one, as should be expected when religion is involved. The Catholic Church has been getting some heat for instituting what is viewed as a "transitional" pope. However, I think they made a wise choice for several reasons.

First off, the church is in turmoil. There is a large divide between the traditionalist Catholics and the progressive Catholics. The progressives want standards changed and doctrine eased up, and the traditionalists want the church to take a stand against the relativism that is making headway into other religions. The next several years will be an important time in the church's internal debate and decision-making, and so it makes sense to put a leader in place who will not be there for several years and therefore possibly be required to change his stance on some of these issues. The change of leadership in a few years will provide a more natural transition in philosophy, if the church decides to become more progressive.

I also like picking a traditionalist pope. Until the church decides to move toward a more post-modern approach (if they ever do), they need to hold the line on doctrine. That being said, I hope they maintain the philosophy of upholding standards that they deem important. I do not agree with all of their doctrinal positions or beliefs, and I do not accept a large portion of Catholic doctrine. However, I respect the fact that they stand for absolute truth and have fought off the attempts from within the church to essentially make it easier to be Catholic. I believe that religion must be based on absolute truth for it to have any importance. Otherwise it's based on what I like today. What basis is that? Why bother following something that changes based on some whim or some cultural standard? The point of religion is to affect culture, not the other way around.

I don't think it should be easy to be Catholic, Buddhist, or anything else. I get annoyed with people who want to be called Catholic, Christian, Muslim, or whatever else but do not want to adhere to the core teachings of the religion or accept certain aspects of what they believe. If you want to form your own easier religion to follow, go ahead. Just don't expect true followers of the major religions to call you something you're not. Either get in or get out.

Enough for today. Regular postings resume as of now, so tomorrow will be economics and politics.

Four More Years

2004-11-03T10:07:00.000-08:00

Ok, I've been snowed under for a while due to work and classes. However, I HAVE to weigh in on the election. Here's the good, the bad, and the ugly:

Good: Bush for four more years (my opinion, nobody has to agree), increased Republican control overall, and the passage of several "defense of marriage" referendums across the country. Finally conservatives are stepping up and voting on issues that concern them and even non-Republicans are weighing in on important issues, even if they deviate from the party line.

I also have to commend Kerry and his campaign for conceding today. There was the possibility of another debacle in Ohio this time around, and he took the high road. He could have allowed his lawyers to make a mockery out of our democratic process, but he did not. Regardless of my thoughts on his campaign, judgments, or whatever else, I respect his decision to be a bigger man than others may have wanted him to be.

Bad: The deep, angry divide between the right and the left in this country. Enough from people yelling about the draft that isn't coming, enough about people threatening to move to Europe. If you're so hate-filled that you cannot put your country above your politics, PLEASE leave. I'm tired of it. Also, the passage of so many amendments here in Florida. It seems like every national election, 25 amendments are made to the state Constitution. PASS A LAW PEOPLE! Expect more from your state legislature. Stop bypassing the system and forcing issues into the hands of the voters that they aren't prepared to make judgments on. We now have 7 or 8 (one too close to call) more amendments to the state Constitution. Good grief.

Ugly: Dan Rather. Boy, he's having a hard day today. His obvious bias last night and his visible agony over Bush's apparent victory (at the time) were just outstanding. I only tuned in for a short while, but Danny Boy was clearly having a hard time of it. Please go home and stop wasting airtime.

Edwards' denial of the facts. I know it was late, and I know there were still votes to be counted. Even so, his vows to "fight on" and his ridiculous performance overall were just too much. There wasn't a need for him to concede anything at that point, but at least tone down the cheerleading just a touch. Maybe I'm just burned out on his ridiculous, over-the-top presentation style and his Frankenstein-like marriage of annoying lawyer tendencies and male cheerleading mannerisms. Who knows?

So that's the run-down. Four more years to try and straighten out Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the economy, and social issues. Considering the progress President Bush has made in the last four years, in spite of obstacles that no President in recent history has faced, I'm encouraged.

Debate Number Two

2004-10-12T07:03:00.000-07:00

With the second debate in the books, here are my thoughts on the evening.

Kerry: How obnoxious is his over-the-top pandering? How many times can he give noncommittal answers? I also disliked how he would continually turn his back on the audience in order to face directly at President Bush when answering questions. Talk to the people, Senator. Oh, and if he would have asserted how much he "respects the feeling behind that question" one more time, I would have puked in my living room. Somebody with absolutely no values that mean anything (we certainly can't make decisions based on our beliefs, although everybody does so every day of their life) whom has to assert that he even understands values when he sees or hears them is a little frightening.

My favorite Kerry moment overall had to be his answer to the abortion question, which was completely indecipherable. So how does he recover on follow-up? By arguing an extreme example that really wouldn't apply anyway (suggested parental notification laws have always had a bypass clause in cases of parental abuse). And what percentage of abortions are performed in those types of situations? The highest figure I've seen, which included rape, incest, and health concerns as reasons for seeking an abortion, was 7%. So Senator Kerry argues one of the more extreme examples and then states that "it's just not that simple." Why is this troubling? I can find a case like his on one side or the other of every controversial decision. If he won't decide on something because of the 7% extreme cases that don't fit the concept, he'll never be able to make a decision. The truth of the matter is that he'll only look at the extreme examples on the liberal side of the equation. That's what he is, after all. Liberal. No matter how much he runs from that label, it sticks in the end.

Bush: Bush focused a lot on Iraq, and unfortunately did not answer the last question on his mistakes in a satisfying way. Also, his assumption that it was a hit on Iraq may or may not have been accurate, but he sounded way too defensive jumping to that conclusion. That was a bad way to end what was an otherwise strong debate for the President. During the debate, he was mostly straightforward, was much more aggressive that in the first debate, and did a good job of talking to the audience and conveying his passion about what he does. Kerry once again seemed aloof and disconnected, which may just be his personality but which results in his speeches being about as compelling as the local farm report. Informational, yes. Emotionally or otherwise compelling? No.

My favorite Bush moment was of course the lumber statements. It was a perfect unplanned moment that showed his sense of humor and exposed Kerry's ridiculous statement for what it was- an obscure reference to an investment that Bush holds. Who here knows exactly everything they invest in (for those who invest)? Who here sees, every month, exactly what they earn from every investment? With 60-68% of Americans investing in the stock market in one way or another, my guess is very few. But according to Kerry, only the "rich" invest (therefore benefiting from the reduction in capital gains tax under Bush, which really helps all investors) and apparently they are personally familiar with every investment they have. How out of touch with America is this guy?

Tomorrow night's final debate should be fun. I'll be back once it's in the can.

The Veeps Weigh In

2004-10-07T10:59:00.000-07:00

After watching the Vice Presidential debate, I wanted to give myself some time to digest it before I posted. Digestion is now complete, so here's my take on the debate.

Cheney: Once again, Cheney impressed me. He has such a strong presence and such a calm confidence about him- you feel comfortable listening to him. I like that he exposed so many of the fallacies of certain Democratic claims (his 90% math lesson was a classic) and didn't allow statements with obvious false elements to slip by unnoticed. He hung in there with a guy who has an obnoxious habit of repeating the same thing over and over as if we're his average jury. He also avoided being baited too much by the Halliburton and voting record attacks, and pressed on with his own approach. Overall, I gave him an A.

Edwards: Too much for me. His slick, avoid the question and hammer home the same old line approach was too much for me to take. Come on- he responded to an attack on Kerry's "global test" comment by repeating (twice, I believe) "He also said he would not give countries veto power over our national security." Ok, so he said both. We know that. Guess what- it's either another flip-flop or he's lying about one of them. By Edwards' own logic, if he said it, it must be true. So which one will he do? Global test or unilateral authority? I think his record can tell us which one.

I also disliked Edwards' illustrations. Not only because they were oversimplified and insulting, but also because you got the feeling you were being coerced. I don't need a nice story about something. Give me facts, numbers, statistics, and let me make up my mind. This isn't court where the more you make the jury cry, the more money they give you. This is a national election. And speaking of court, did anybody else catch the fact that his solution for our legal environment involved not capping awards, but putting in place an elaborate process for qualifying lawsuits? Who do you think will pay for this process and who do you think will benefit from it? We will pay for it, and lawyers will benefit. Who else can qualify the validity of a lawsuit? This would equal a huge expansion of the legal system, which is the opposite direction we need to go.

Overall, I gave Edwards a B-, and it would have been lower except for his aggressiveness and charisma.

So that's my analysis at this time. I'll be back after Friday to review the next presidential debate.

Just in Time for the Debates

2004-09-30T19:36:00.000-07:00

I'm back. Things have been crazy with our weekly hurricane schedule. Twice now I've had to repair my roof and this last time, I had to catch some leaks. It's been crazy. I couldn't miss the debates though. Even as contrived and set up as they are, there are always great moments of back and forth dialogue, even if indirect. Here are my initial thoughts, fresh off the debate.

Kerry: He did a good job of simplifying his usual long-winded delivery and stayed on track pretty well. He seemed to take a few more shots than Bush did, although neither one got too venomous at any point. My problem with him was this: his great plan for Iraq is basically Bush's plan, just somehow better and faster. Summits would be planned- they are. Troops would be trained- they are being trained. Countries would be brought in to help fight. How exactly? They haven't wanted to get involved up until now, what will change their mind? What will he give them? He actually said at one point that they would have to offer something to countries to get them to support us in foreign issues. What sort of deals or money would they get? And who would pay for it? All of us.

Bush: He seemed too laid back. I wanted him to expose Kerry's plan as Bush's plan plus 80 pounds of speculation, which he didn't do very well. I wanted him to respond to Kerry's body armor comment with "gee, if that's true, it's exactly what you voted for." The "mixed messages" euphemism wasn't direct enough. He needed to hammer home the changes in position and the voting record on defense. On North Korea, Kerry wants to talk. We are talking. On the Sudan, Kerry wants to spend tons of money to give them everything including the kitchen sink so that they'll fight their own battles. Some of these things needed to be clearer.

Overall, I actually think Kerry came out slightly stronger in this debate. Bush passed up too many opportunities to really hammer Kerry on a few key issues, and other than Kerry's "World Test" comment, there wasn't much to jump on for the Repubs. I think that the Republican campaign needs to pull those sound bites and those few things they can really grab on to and try to capitalize on them over the next few weeks to make up some lost ground.

Of Hurricanes and Price Gouging...

2004-09-14T08:57:00.000-07:00

It's been a while. Since Tuesday is normally politics and economics, I'll throw some economics in. However, I really want to talk about life in Florida lately.

With Ivan bearing down on Florida (at least potentially) last week, many of us here were panicked, upset, irritable, and generally stressed out. I was among those for a while. I had just paid more than I wanted to for a roof repair from Frances and now Ivan was coming. Three hurricanes in a row seemed to be too much. After realizing I was stressed and irritable, I took some time to consider my situation. Here are my conclusions.

1. I'm stupid. I chose to live in a state that has hurricanes. I then get upset when they come. It's the equivalent of living in Minnesota and cursing the snow.

2. I'm selfish. I was irritated at having to repair my roof when many had no home left, much less a roof. I think the worse place to be, attitude-wise, is between normalcy and total devastation. If things are normal, we're fine. If we have nothing left, we resign ourselves to it and move on. In between those two, we still have enough of a reminder of how things should be but don't have the normalcy we crave. It's here that we're most selfish and irritable.

3. I'm small and ultimately powerless. For people who haven't watched several days of news coverage showing you exactly how and when you will be homeless, you may not fully grasp the feeling of total impotence that comes with it. We're nothing more than ants in the grand scheme of things, and the feeling of a huge juggernaut of natural destruction bearing down on you gets that across pretty well.

Economically, it's been interesting to watch the shortages around the area and still hear the adamant stance against price gouging. The only reason shortages exist is because of price controls. I stood in line for 4 hours to get plywood Saturday morning because of price controls. Keeping the price from increasing, as it naturally should due to higher demand, gave suppliers little incentive to ship more than they did down here (it costs them more but they can't charge more- why do it?) and made it so we had to ration (10 sheets per customer). If prices had gone up according to the higher demand, you wouldn't need to tell people not to buy 75 sheets. They couldn't afford to. This would force people to self-ration, and the higher prices would attract more supply. For a great column on this, click here.

Ivan has gone west for now, but another hurricane will be coming, sooner or later. I should expect it, accept it, and prepare for it. Beyond that, I have no right to complain.

I'm not dead yet...

2004-09-07T05:37:00.000-07:00

It's been a while- life's been crazy with work and classes both cycling up at the same time. That's the downside to working at a college while finishing my graduate degree. Both major aspects of my professional life get bust at the same time. Oh well- one more year.

We survived Hurricane Frances. Lost a few shingles and started leaking a little bit, but came through without any newsworthy damage. Now to find a roofer with an open slot on the schedule...

My review of the RNC is going to be the major part of this post. There was good, there was bad, there was... you know the drill by now.

The Good: Arnold, Cheney, even Bush (for the most part). Arnold's energy was incredible, and his delivery was perfect. Some of the lines were the normal convention cheese, but overall he was excellent. I'm not even talking about content in saying that- he was excellent in accomplishing what he was there to do. Fire up the crowd, deliver the party message. He did that better than any of the speakers I saw (I didn't see them all, admittedly) during the DNC.

Cheney was excellent as well. One of the best speakers I've heard during this run. I know people think Edwards is great, but he's a little too talking head for me. Cheney seemed more genuine than Edwards has yet. Maybe it's knowing JE is a lawyer, but he seems too put-on. Cheney was funny, confident, and seemed very strong during his speech. The Repubs needed that.

Bush told me more about his agenda in 10 minutes than Kerry did during his whole acceptance speech. He was certainly vague in some areas, but toe-to-toe he delivered more substance about his platform than Kerry did. Much more. It wasn't "we're going to stop jobs from going overseas" (how?) it was "we're going to test high school seniors for educational accountability" (a point I don't agree with, but which was specific). He did what he needed to- put forth his plans for the next four years.

The Bad: The Bush daughters. I don't blame them for being out of their league in that setting. The nervousness, giggling, etc. are forgivable. Their speech, on the other hand, was atrocious. It was stupid and wasn't funny at all. And before you start the "it was for the younger generation" apologetics, I am part of the younger generation (technically for one more year). It was stupid. The worst part was that it made them look stupid too, which I don't believe they are. It really sucked Arnold's energy out of the room, which was unfortunate.

The Ugly: My good buddy Zell. I loved his speech, and his interaction with Chris Matthews after the speech was an instant classic. It was ugly, but it was so much fun to watch. In this politically correct age where we bash people through media, behind their backs, and any other indirect way and then smile to their face and shake hands, it was refreshing in an odd way to see somebody take the direct approach. Good for Zell.

That's it for now- back later this week with more blogging goodness.

Weekend in Review

2004-08-17T07:04:00.000-07:00

Since Hurricane Charley interrupted our usual broadcast, I'm going to do a different post today. I didn't really watch any movies over the weekend, but I did tune in to the Olympics and watched a lot of hurricane coverage. My thoughts on both:

Hurricane Charley: I'm glad it didn't hit where I'm at, but I feel for those who were hit by it. Several donation and volunteer programs are in full swing for those affected, and I hope people take advantage of them. The most frustrating part of it all was waiting. Sitting around, knowing it may be headed your way, and not being able to do a thing about it. Nothing like a force of nature to make us feel as powerless and puny as we really are in the grand scheme of things.

For those who complain about having to evacuate "for nothing" and say they won't bother next time, I say go for it. I'm all for thinning the herd by getting rid of a few idiots. After seeing what Charley did to Punta Gorda and other areas, if there's even a possibility of a storm turning my way, I'm preparing for the worst.

Olympics: The opening ceremony was excellent and redeemed the Greek nation, which was under a lot of fire for their preparation or lack thereof. I thoroughly enjoyed it. As for the competition so far, here are the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good: Michael Phelps is winning medals left and right, even if the color isn't what some might have hoped. I list him under the good because when he's interviewed, you really get the sense that this is a guy who loves competition and is truly proud to just be there competing. All of the pressure the media has tried to put on him hasn't appeared to affect his perspective so far, and I hope it won't.

The US men's gymnastics team put in a tremendous effort en route to their silver medal last night. Japan showed that they were undoubtedly the gold medal team for these games, but the US men rallied back from a disappointing rings rotation to put up 6 excellent routines on the parallel and high bars and beat out the Romanian team in the process.

The Bad: The United States' rose-colored glasses approach to the games. Watching commercials and even the coverage of the games, you'd think we're the favorite in every event. Let's be honest and say that Michael Phelps is competing against two or three guys (as he was in the 200 freestyle) that will likely beat him. From that perspective, his bronze in the event is a tremendous accomplishment, which it was. From the perspective of "there goes his shot at the Spitz record," it's a disappointment. While I understand the desire to get the viewing public excited about the games and the competitors, let's still respect the tremendous athletes from other countries by being realistic in our perspective.

The Ugly: The US men's basketball team was an embarrassment to the United States on Sunday. I hope we go back to using amateurs for the next games, which I know we won't. Two things make me angry- one, the list of athletes who declined the invitation to compete. While I understand their hesitance to endanger their money-making season playing ability, it's an incredibly selfish thing to not represent your country in a sport you excel at. The second is the attitude of the US team. They appear to think they're entitled to the gold just for showing up. They seem to think they can come back from any deficit. There is no sense of urgency, no team-oriented desire to win that was apparent in Sunday's game.

That said, I admire Iverson, James, and Duncan for playing in the games. The other players should be honored to be there- none of them are among the best we have to offer. The problem is in the incentives that exist for NBA players not to play. Why threaten your season, and all of the money that comes with it, for international competition that isn't rewarding to those with a money focus? Let's go back to recruiting guys who have a genuine desire to play and to win, and see what they can accomplish. If some of them are NBA players, great. If not, start visiting colleges. I've never seen a more disappointing "team" effort than I saw against Puerto Rico. Whom, by the way, were a bunch of guys with a genuine desire to play and to win. Funny how that works.

Why I Love Liberals

2004-08-12T11:13:00.000-07:00

Instead of my normal politics/economics post, I'm going to do more of an informal article on my love for liberals.

Why I Love Liberals:

1. Their belief that spending more money on healthcare, education, and everything else can be accomplished while reducing the budget deficit. Higher taxes, anyone? How about everyone?

2. Their belief that raising the minimum wage will go hand-in-hand with their plans to reduce overseas outsourcing and job creation. Yeah- businesses will hire more people and send less work overseas when they have to pay more for labor. Sounds reasonable to me.

3. The way that they call conservatives and anybody with religious beliefs "hate-mongers" and other affectionate terms, as if their hatred of these people (not to mention Bush) is ok.

4. Their continued statements that a 15 month approach to war that included repeated attempts to bring the UN and other nations on board was both unilateral and rushed.

5. Their assertions that Bush improperly relied on faulty intelligence regarding Iraq when the intelligence he relied on was supported by several other nations and several congressmen relied on it when they voted to approve military action, including one John Kerry.

6. The way they're working to suppress the Swift Boat Veterans when actions by Republicans to suppress similar types of information would immediately be condemned as the suppression of free speech.

7. The fact that they keep mentioning how this group (the Vets) is funded by a rich Texas Republican when Moveon.org and other initiatives are funded by rich Democrats. Yet they're somehow valid while the Vets aren't?

8. Their elevation of "tolerance" and "diversity" to a level of importance usually reserved for religion, while doing all they can to remove Christianity from schools, public offices, and anywhere the courts will allow them to. Apparently tolerance of Christians is not required.

9. Their belief that taking mild steps to make it harder for children to access pornography online is a heinous affront to society. Pornography is a heinous affront to marriages, families, and anybody with values. But heaven forbid we restrict it. Oops- I said heaven.

10. The fact that they indoctrinate children through their control of the educational system in America (teachers' union, anybody?) but fight Christianity in schools since it supposedly indoctrinates children. I guess it's not a matter of whether or not there's indoctrination, but who's doing it.

That's the list for now. A hurricane's coming, so I'll be back after it moves through.

Movie Reviews

2004-08-09T05:38:00.000-07:00

I missed a post or two last week, but this week I should be on top of things. Work's getting a little frenzied as we approach the start of a new school year. This is also my last week before my final year of grad school begins again. Should be interesting.

Here are the reviews, ratings out of 5 stars as usual.

Miracle: What's not to love about a true story of this magnitude? The thing that really set this apart from other underdog sports movies is the attention to detail. Every play was right on, and you felt like you were watching those games again. Also, the movie recreated the political and cultural atmosphere of the time perfectly. With such rich context and great performances all around, this is a can't-miss movie. Four and a half stars.

Starship Troopers 2: I know, I know. Call it morbid curiosity. This was exactly what I'd expect out of a direct-to-video sequel to a cheesy sci-fi flick. None of the original actors, a departure from the original plot (although a minor one compared to most of these films), more gore, and more nudity. Ah yes- if you don't have the star power and the budget, put in some nudity. With that said, I did find it interesting enough to watch all the way to the ridiculous ending. One and a half stars.

The New Guy: A friend recommended it, so I gave it a shot. I was pleasantly surprised to see that this wasn't just another crude sophomoric humor movie with the same tired jokes. This movie took the formula and dialed down the crude humor quite a bit (except for the opening scene, it was pretty tame compared to most other movies of this type) while finding different ways to get laughs. Maybe I was just too tired when I watched it, but I thought it was hilarious. Eddie Griffin is excellent, and the cameos alone make it worth watching. Few things are better than a psychopathic Vanilla Ice beating record store customers down. While not for everybody, it was a solid comedy in my opinion. Four stars.

To Bounce or Not to Bounce...

2004-08-03T13:31:00.000-07:00

Where's the bounce? That's the big question coming out of last week's DNC, and it's being downplayed by Dems and trumpeted by Repubs. I personally think that the truth of the matter is so many people are decided one way or another already that few decided voters would swing based on either convention. As for undecideds, I think it's going to take a lot more than superficial rah-rah fluff to persuade them to pick either one. Here's hoping the debates give us something more.

On the Democratic side, I'm a little disappointed in Kerry's speech. Not much real content, and his tendency to be too verbose will hurt him if not corrected. He loses people. On a different note, I can't believe how excited people got for Billary. She's possibly the worst speaker I've heard in recent years, and he's a self-absorbed womanizer who did well-documented things with interns while riding the coattails of an economic expansion that had little to do with his leadership. Still, the crowd shots revealed convention-goers who I thought were going to pass out from the excitement when he was announced. How sad that he's that much of a hero to people. Once somebody can convincingly explain why he deserves that level of admiration, I'll reconsider my stance.

On the Republican front, it's been pretty quiet while the DNC had its week. Bush has been moving to respond to the 9/11 report, and in spite of the "too little too late" stance of the Dems, I'm glad something's being done in response. My only hope is that the pressure to respond quickly doesn't come back to bite us in the future through bad decisions.

Republicans have been calling into question Kerry's documentation of his war experience as well. Now this is a little strange to me, and not because of my political persuasions. On a basic level, what kind of person goes back after battles and "reenacts" them for video footage? If you're truly behind something, you go do it, give it your all, and keep moving. Kerry's focus on footage during his tour that's being reported makes me wonder where that line between ambition and obsession is drawn. Was he just there for future political leverage? His actions once he returned seem to indicate that the political side of the war was far more important to him than what was being done to win it. If that's the case, and I'm not sure it is yet, I would have severe questions about his ability to support and lead our troops.

Economics: As we march towards the election, I would encourage everybody to read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics." I started the book last night, and it is one of the most readable, common-sense books I've ever read on the topic. With so many candidates having economic agendas and planks in their platform, every voter should be familiar with economic principles, and this book is excellent for readers at any interest level. I've studied domestic and international economics at the undergraduate and graduate level, and so I can confidently state (based on the first section of the book, at least) that this is one of the best economic books out there.

Movie Reviews

2004-08-03T05:46:00.000-07:00

I survived the audit. Barely, but I survived. Only after a long weekend of complete mental loafing could I return to work. So in the interest of that loafing, I decided to watch a couple of movies...

Evil Dead: I'd never seen the original work in the Sam Raimi/Bruce Campbell trilogy, so I decided to watch it. Wow. This had to be one of the most ridiculous movies I've ever seen. Especially since it tried to be genuinely frightening and serious. I'm not surprised it gained a cult following, due to the overdone gore and campiness, but what a lame movie. The special effects at the end, once the last two are killed, are especially funny. Things that seemed cool in the '80's.... One and a half stars.

Army of Darkness: This movie always cracks me up. I give this one credit for not even trying to be serious. I know- I skipped Evil Dead 2 in the sequence. I've seen it somewhat recently and didn't feel the need to brush up. However, Army of Darkness is one of my favorite "guilty pleasures" movies from my mislead childhood. The complete disregard for any level of logic is so blatant and beautiful that I can't resist cheering as Ash fires off approximately 56 rounds from his rifle without reloading. 3 stars.

That's it for the weekend. Back later today with my political and economic post.

Fun Week

2004-07-26T04:32:00.000-07:00

It's audit time! Our institutional audit is this week, and so last week (preparation) and this week (site visit) are basically shot. I'll try to post coherent updates, but no promises. We usually work until 9 or 10 pm each day, with little room for breaks in there. If I survive, it will be nice when it's over.

Movie reviews: This weekend was kind of strange movie weekend. I had a couple of things I'd been interested in seeing that were out there, so this weekend I saw them.

Return to Me: Okay, the whole heart beating when David Duchovny was around was corny and somewhat troubling. It seemed more Poe than romance to me. But I enjoyed the movie. Minnie Driver was great in her role, and David Duchovny was slightly above mediocre. 3 stars.

Saturday Night Fever: This was a research viewing for an upcoming event with a disco theme. What a bizarre movie. Maybe it was edgy and timely when it came out, but it was just really strange to me. I got the point, but the way it was presented was somewhat disjointed and didn't keep me interested in the story. 2 1/2 stars.

I'll hopefully be back tomorrow with politics and economics, but no guarantees.

Politics and Economics

2004-07-20T12:22:00.000-07:00

Ah, my favorite column. Admittedly, I haven't had time to keep up on this as much as I'd like to in the last week, but a few things caught my eye.

Politics:

Kerry and Edwards roll on. I'm really looking forward to the debates this year and hope that we get some decent material to evaluate Kerry and Edwards on. I really hope somebody calls out the fact that they just keep promising programs and initiatives that cost money- lots of it- but also say they'll reduce the federal deficit. Think about this one for a moment. They want to spend trillions of dollars on healthcare, alternative energy research, and all kinds of education initiatives but also say they'll reduce the difference between the government's income and its expenses. The questions have to be as follows:

a) what spending will be reduced? Based on his record, probably support for our military. Nothing better than cutting their funding at a time when they have to train for and adapt to an entirely new kind of enemy as they battle terrorist cells around the world. The urban-style warfare that is required is more costly to support than traditional warfare. Will Kerry fund it? Somebody please ask him. If so, what will he cut?

b) whose taxes will be increased? If expenses won't go down, income must go up to reduce the deficit. I can tell you whose taxes- everybody's. Especially corporations and "the rich." The funny thing about raising tax rates for the wealthy is that they have so many tax-reducing activities that they can afford to operate and participate in that recent studies show they only pay about 16% of their annual income in taxes to the federal government. So why not raise rates for a group that will remain largely unaffected in real terms- to make it look like you're doing something- while increasing spending? Result- higher deficits. Also, more of the wealthy, who would otherwise invest in businesses to gain profits, end up having to find tax write-offs and shelters to protect their money from the government. Less money into the economy, little to no more to government, and increased government spending- you have a great recipe for killing economic expansion.

On the Republican front, continued assertions that Cheney will stay on the Republican ticket. The fact that he even needs to defend that position is funny to me. Almost as funny as him cursing at Leahy. The thing I find interesting about that whole situation is that anyone would expect a member of an administration that is under constant personal, venomous attack by many and nagging, subtle cheapshots from several others to take it all and not fire back at some point. Keep poking a dog with a stick and sooner or later, you'll get bitten. All this proved to me is that Cheney's human for what he did and a lot more patient than me for how long it took him to do it.

Economics:

Greenspan's Capitol Hill report revealed little new information but continued to support the fact that economic growth is real, appears to be sustainable, and is broadening week by week to include employment, production, and most major areas. Of course, the ignorant still cry that the sky is falling because they personally don't have twice the income they had last year. And they complain about inflation, since it's the one area that even Greenspan has acknowledged needs to be watched closely. Econ 101- with currency devaluation, prices rise. With loose monetary policy (targeting lower rates as the Fed has for past years), prices rise. Greenspan knows it and will adjust rates up if he has to. Things are well under control in both Americas.

Movie Reviews

2004-07-20T07:02:00.000-07:00

Due to unforeseen complications, there will be two posts today- Movie Reviews and Politics and the Economy.

Two Weeks Notice: After a stretch of movies for me, I had to get another one for the wife. And oddly enough, I kind of liked it too. One reason- Hugh Grant. His one-liners throughout the movie made Sandra Bullock tolerable, which is quite a feat. So in spite of the annoying female lead, I give it three out of five stars.

Butterfly Effect: My first big Netflix letdown. The rental only disk they shipped me wasn't double-sided, so I could only watch the Director's Cut and not the theatrical version, which is usually on the top side. Big deal, some may say, but if you thought the ending for the Director's Cut was as stupid as I did, it would have been nice to have the theatrical version to at least compare it to. Overall, I really disliked this movie. It was unnecessarily sadistic and vulgar, and it seemed like they were just trying way too hard to be so thematically dark. And don't get me started on the logical inconsistencies. It was one of those movies I walked away from thinking that I just spent two hours of my life and got nothing worthwhile out of them. One star out of five. The one star is for Ashton Kutcher for at least attempting to play a serious role. Now that you've made the attempt, never do it again. Thanks.

Week in Review

2004-07-16T13:39:00.000-07:00

The Good:

Martha sees jail time. While I feel sorry for the media circus this became, I was happy to see a reasonable penalty handed out. Lying to federal investigators needs to come with consequences. Regardless of the insider trading issue, this alone is reason to hand out time.

Ken Jennings keeps on rolling. I hope he goes for another month before he's beaten. Anybody that smart should be able to retire, and I hope he makes enough before it's done that he feels he can.

The Bad:

Rosie O'Donnell. Could she be any more annoying right now? It seems like I've seen her giant head more on TV this last week than I have in years. If she isn't spouting the same old nonsense about Bush and Iraq, she's shoving her latest gay diatribe in our faces. Shut up Rosie. You're obnoxious and irrelevant. Go live your life however you choose and stop telling everybody about it. When's the last time you heard somebody soapboxing over their heterosexual lifestyle? Talking about the fact that they're straight every chance they get? You haven't. Neither have I. If I did, I'd tell them to shut up too.

Jay London gets the boot. He was hilarious. Most people just didn't get him. Those of us who did hope to see him more from now on.

The Ugly:

Oprah Winfrey had a show this past week on baby rape, child prostitution, and other heinous sexual situations around the world. I decided to make sure I saw it when I found out it would be on. If you didn't watch it, you should. You should watch every minute and feel every bit of sick rage that these things should inspire. You should then think about Iraq and the fact that Saddam reportedly had state-funded rapists on staff to degrade women at his command. Read about his sick sons' actions while in power. Then try convincingly telling yourself it was a mistake. If you still can, go buy a soul.

That's it for this week. Back on Monday with movie reviews.

I Hate Group Work

2004-07-15T11:27:00.000-07:00

My posting for the past two days has fallen into a black hole I like to call group work. I'm finishing a graduate degree at the moment, and there's nothing my professors like better than group work. I get it in almost every class. Here's why group work is stupid.

1. You don't know your pool of potential partners. In a larger university, you maybe know one or two people from one class to the next. So it's an educational crap shoot as to who you end up with. Here's hoping they don't suck!

2. You can't reassign them or get them fired. Supposedly group work prepares you for the real world where you have to work with people. Well in the real world if somebody sucks, you can get them a) off the project, b) assigned to a different project, or c) fired. If only I could do that now.

3. Group work, individual grade. Hey- it's not only yours but also my GPA you're screwing over by not doing good work. So we all know what that means- I get to spend two days decrapping a project so I don't get a bad grade. Yippee!

4. Working with other people. Why don't people realize their weaknesses? I know I don't do certain things well. I'm verbose, and need to limit myself when I write. So I don't volunteer to write summaries. Why can't others do the same thing with speaking in public, presenting in class, and proofreading?

So that's it for today. I'm going to sleep for a week.

Surprise- The NAACP is Mad About Something...

2004-07-13T10:00:00.000-07:00

As promised, today's post (and each Tuesday's from now on) will be about politics and economics: two things I follow closely, and two things that most people don't spend much time really investigating. Too many people are comfortable letting others tell them what's going on in these arenas, and that's how you get right- and left-wing parrots who just regurgitate what they hear. My goal is to present opinions based on facts, regardless of which side I'm discussing. The only problem is that I'm so opinionated- we'll see how it goes.

Republicans

Again, the myopic concentration on national security and Iraq is NOT the platform Bush needs. Social issues are what will gain him votes. The good news is that a Gallup poll showed that most people see him as decisive, which I agree with. The bad news is that they also see him as arrogant. I think his unapologetic and unwavering stance on his decisions since 9/11 have led to this dual opinion. At the same time, I don't think he owes the nation an apology. But even to hear him say that he's human and makes mistakes too would be a nice touch. A little fallibility is nothing to fear with most voters.

The big news is the NAACP's reaction to Bush declining to attend their annual convention. Come on, people- the NAACP has done nothing but attack Bush, not only on policies but personally. Would you go to a meeting of people who mock you and call for your head on a stake on a regular basis (figuratively, of course)? What's the point? This is the same group that was upset at Bill Cosby (and still is, no matter what their official statements say) for calling out the black leaders in this nation for not doing anything to advance the black community. Instead, as he stated in more general terms, they spend their time fighting for lower standards and the right to fail with impunity. Good for Bill Cosby. It's about time somebody with his voice stepped up and called a spade a spade, regardless of which side of the figurative aisle they speak from.

Democrats:

I'm so glad John Edwards carried his "Two Americas" concept to the national forum he now participates in once again. If the Republicans can get people to actually think about this concept, the sheer ridiculousness of it should sink in pretty quickly. Two Americas? Even if there were two, which there aren't, which one do you think Kerry and Edwards live in? Which one do you think they're concerned with? I love how the Kerry/Edwards campaign keeps jumping on the "Edwards' father was a millworker" bandwagon as if it will make us all ignore the fact that Edwards is one of the rich people that Democrats supposedly are there to protect the rest of us from. And how has he done it? Suing companies and driving up costs for everybody else. Wealth redistribution via lawsuit. And who walks away from these class action suits that Edwards loves so much with the most? The lawyers. Every time. But facts aren't important- Edwards' father was a millworker.

The only thing funnier than that is the Democratic platform on economics. Hey- let's raise the minimum wage to protect workers. Only problem with that is little things like the fact that higher minimum wages will price more workers out of the market, creating a labor surplus in the non-union labor market. And higher minimum wages will really go well with Kerry's goal of decreasing overseas outsourcing of jobs. And his goal of creating jobs in the US. Brilliant.

Economics:

News today that the trade deficit decreased "unexpectedly." Really? Most economists I know expected it. Economics 101- as your currency value decreases, exports become cheaper and imports become more expensive. Couple that with the slower summer retail sales (Wal-Mart is the biggest importer in the US) and why would we not expect a decrease? Second half economic forecasts received a boost based on the report, so by November Kerry and Edwards' "the economic sky is falling" cry should sound even more ridiculous than it does now.

I love election years- we who study economics roll our eyes at most of what we hear. To be fair, the eye-rolling is directed at both sides. Interesting stat though- the stock market averages higher gains in months following a Republican election win than a Democratic win, even more so when incumbent Repubs win. Why might that be? Well, people realize that a political party who doesn't demonize capitalism and call for businesses and those who run them to pay higher taxes so those who don't want to work can be paid to sit at home (or call for people to make $10/hour flipping burgers) will probably do more to stimulate growth. And when businesses have more money, guess what happens- they produce more, hire more people, give people raises, and reward stockholders. And before you jump on investors as more of the "rich folk," keep in mind that over 50% of Americans invest in the stock market. Wall Street- not just for the evil 1930's-style tycoons anymore. No matter what Dems would have you believe.

Monday, Monday...

2004-07-12T13:18:00.000-07:00

Ah, nothing like the madness of a Monday work day to jerk you out of the serene weekend mood. I finally broke down and had one of those cold Starbucks espresso drinks, and I'm hoping that it will either energize or kill me. I'm not sure which I'd prefer at this point.

I decided that Monday will be my movie review day. Being a Netflix user, weekends are great opportunities to catch up on my viewing list. Here are the movies I saw this weekend. Not all are new movies, so bear with me. Ratings are out of five possible stars.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding: I was entertained. It was funny enough to keep me interested, and the romance wasn't too formulaic and in-your-face. The whole crazy family concept went over well enough to make the movie interesting. Plus it was short. With everybody deciding in recent years that it's not a movie if it's not over two hours, it's nice to see a short, simple movie. Three and half stars.

The General's Daughter: I've decided that John Travolta should only play military characters from now on. Look at the evidence folks- Broken Arrow (not his best, but good), Basic (one of my favorite movies), and The General's Daughter. This was an excellent movie. Somewhat twisted, but excellent overall. Travolta is just way too convincing in these types of roles, and his quirkiness keeps it from getting stale. It helps that he's a pretty convincing tough guy as well. If only Battlefield: Earth had been about the military. Nah, it still would have been horrible. Four stars.

That was it for this weekend. Tomorrow's post will be my political/economic post for the week.

Week in Review

2004-07-09T05:47:00.000-07:00

I said I'd think about a format, and I have. Each Friday I'll do the week in review. This will be a 3-part posting that will include good things I've seen this week, bad things I've seen this week, and amusing things I've seen this week. Kind of a good, bad, and ugly approach to my last few days.

The Good:

Ken Lay is formally indicted. I know it's a small comfort to the multitudes who lost so much due to his actions, but justice is still something that just makes me smile. Now I hope they nail him on every charge possible and not just securities fraud.

The Amazing Race. Don't ask me why, but I love this show. It's one of the few shows where I find the actual competition to be more interesting than the people involved in it. Sure, you still get your Survivor moments, but at least they don't make up 80% of the program.

The Bad:

Model Fear Factor. How many models can wimp out of ridiculously easy challenges in one night? Now keep in mind that I'm usually not at home on Monday nights, so this last Monday I was scrambling to find something to watch (no cable). Fear Factor ended up being it because in the first challenge, all but one of the models just gave up. They didn't even have to eat anything disgusting at any point in the show (what does that have to do with fear anyway? I'm not afraid of dead bugs, but that doesn't mean I can eat them and keep them down). So you get one of the easiest Fear Factors I've ever seen and they still wimp out. Don't quit your day job. Ever.

Bush's current campaign strategy. Does he really think he has a chance to win if he focuses on the war in Iraq, which fewer people support every day, and the economy, which is recovering but most people don't know anything about? Come on. The truth of the matter is more people are going to vote for Kerry based on the fact that their obsolete manufacturing job was a casualty of globalization than will vote for Bush due to an economic recovery that they don't understand. He needs to start focusing on the partial-birth abortion issue and gay marriage. They may be divisive issues, but the country is so divided right now that no attempt at centrism will gain anything but a negligible amount of votes. And the majority of Americans are on the conservative side of these issues still. Make Kerry take a stance on these things and call his voting record out.

The Ugly:

The ridiculously positive response to Edwards. If I see one more person wetting themselves with excitement because Edwards is so energetic and such a great candidate, I'm going to scream. He's a lawyer who's made millions by suing companies. Nothing more, nothing less. Now I'm not anti-lawyer overall, I just get very amused when a lawyer who is personally responsible for millions of dollars in malpractice awards- and therefore higher malpractice insurance costs- and therefore higher healthcare costs, says he's going to help reduce the cost of healthcare. Yeah. You've helped so much already.

That's it for this week. Back on Monday.

Lightning and Denzel Washington

2004-07-08T06:55:00.000-07:00

Lightning sucks. Especially when you're in the lightning capital of the Western world and you're responsible for phones and data. Between mediating for three vendors and having to replace 85% of our phone system yesterday, my patience with nature is at an all-time low. Unfortunately, hurricane season is just getting started.

So how would one cope with such stress? I decided to watch Training Day. Denzel as the crooked cop- I liked it. It was a very dark, intense movie from start to finish. Denzel managed to give a potentially 2-dimensional character type some real depth, with flashes of redemptive qualities that lasted just long enough for you to really dislike him the rest of the time. It's not for everyone, but it's good for what it is. If you like The Shield on FX, you'll probably enjoy this movie.

In closing, I'd like to thank Netflix for making movie watching so easy for me. Seriously, this is a great service. I've watched more movies since I've joined than I ever would have rented from Blockbuster. When you can get three at a time delivered to your door and all you have to do is drop them back in the mail to get a replacement, it makes traditional renting a lot less attractive. No time limits, fast delivery, and I haven't had a problem with any of the movies yet. I have at least one movie at home at any given time, so if there's a night when TV sucks, I have options. They have all the new releases and a ton of older stuff Blockbuster doesn't carry. Therefore you'll be seeing short movie reviews regularly on this page. In fact, I'll probably come up with some sort of weekly format for my posting in the next few days so that there's some structure to it all.

And So It Begins...

2004-07-07T13:50:00.000-07:00

After severely mocking those who blog for some time, I've finally decided to jump in. Do I think my thoughts are that interesting? No. Do I think I have something to say that is so important it can't be kept from the world any longer? Not really. My basic problem is that I read too much, watch too much, and hold way too much internal dialogue to not have some healthy outlet for my random thoughts. So I present "The View Inside." Inside what? Just my strange, overactive mind. Calm down.

So my first installment will include my thoughts on Spider-man 2. I'm sure everybody's read too many reviews already, so I'm not going that route. I'm going to talk about the movie-going experience as a whole.

I saw this movie twice. The second time was one of those "go with the friend who hasn't seen it but doesn't want to go alone" things. And I was entertained the second time. All I'll say about the movie itself is that the writing was effective for the type of movie it was intended to be and the effects were well-done and fit the overall feel and pace of the movie. Too many times movies turn into an excuse to spend money on special effects sequences and don't contribute to the overall story (of course, there often isn't one). Spider-man 2 was not one of those movies.

The overall experience was, unfortunately, frustrating. In fact, between the two viewings I've determined that I really dislike going to movies. Three reasons.

1. Cell phones. There are signs outside the theater saying turn them off. There's a comment during the commercials at the beginning (more on this in a second...) saying turn them off. And yet, in both movies, at least two people got audible calls during the film. Apparently they're exempt from common courtesy. If you won't silence your phone or set it to vibrate, you're inconsiderate. If you can't, you're too stupid to have a phone.

2. Children at adult movies. Spider-man 2 will appeal to kids. I understand that. But the screaming and crying during the Dr. Octopus hospital scene was a clear reminder that what kids want isn't always what's best for them. Parents, see a movie before you decide to bring your kids to it. Not only is it traumatic for them, it's annoying to the rest of us. Spider-man 2 wasn't my first experience with this. I've seen kindergarten-aged children at several movies in the past, including Matrix: Revolutions, Terminator 3, and The Hulk. Yes, I saw The Hulk. That movie was traumatic on several levels.

3. Commercials. Apparently my $8 ticket and $12 popcorn/soda combo isn't enough money to keep the movie industry going. Now we have to watch commercials disguised as entertainment. Regal Cinemas calls it "The Twenty." What is "The Twenty?" Twenty minutes of ads packaged as entertainment news. Gee, I've learned so much about the latest Britney Spears video. And Fanta. And some video game I don't care about. The time went by so much faster since I was being "entertained." Not really. If I want commercials, I'll watch free television. Give me my movie and stop marketing to me. I'd actually prefer a dark theater and elevator music. I'm just waiting for the first implementation of Minority Report-style advertising where the video ads speak to you directly. Then I can start hating the sound of my own name.

By the way, Minority Report was a good movie. In spite of Tom Cruise.