Check out this link from Gawker which talks about some movie exec's quest to make Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. None other than Angelina Jolie would star as Dagny Taggart.
http://gawker.com/5006930/movie-rights-to-godless-ayn-rand-novel-acquired-from-catholics
He is also trying to make The Fountainhead which would (not coincidentally?) star Brad Pitt as Howard Roark.
I'm down! I can't see how they would make a movie worthy of these two books, but I applaud the effort. They have already once turned The Fountainhead into a movie, in 1949, starring Gary Cooper.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Stuff about Prison
This is amazing. The U.S. has more prisoners than any other country in the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
By comparison, China, (which has over 1.2 billion people to the U.S.'s 300 million), has 1.6 million prisoners vs. 2.3 million for the U.S.
Combine this w/ the # of executions that the U.S. is responsible for and it sure doesn't sound like we are the "land of the free".
BTW - For some reason when I publish links now, they don't show up as Hyperlinks. If you want to read the article, copy and paste the URL into a browser. Back to Web 0.5 I guess
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
By comparison, China, (which has over 1.2 billion people to the U.S.'s 300 million), has 1.6 million prisoners vs. 2.3 million for the U.S.
Combine this w/ the # of executions that the U.S. is responsible for and it sure doesn't sound like we are the "land of the free".
BTW - For some reason when I publish links now, they don't show up as Hyperlinks. If you want to read the article, copy and paste the URL into a browser. Back to Web 0.5 I guess
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Stuff about Patriotism
This article (by David Barstow) is another example of how much America has lost its way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
It's really long (3 1/2 full pages in the Sunday NY TImes), so I'll summarize:
Since before the Iraq war, the Pentagon (and later Attorney General Gonzales) has used retired military "experts" to "amplify" the White House's messages on the major news networks' coverage of the war. They pumped out talking points on weapons of mass destruction, that things were going well, that we didn't need more troops, etc. etc.
The rub is that almost all of these retired military men are still connected to the military industrial complex. They are either CEOs, Board members, consultants or lobbyists for defense companies and clients. In return for being talking heads for the administration, these patriots got inside access to the Pentagon's leaders which they could use to grow their businesses. And if they criticized the administration on air, there was the potential that they would lose their inside access and even their companies' contracts.
I don't know who is most at fault in this, the Pentagon, the retired "military analysts", or the networks for being complicit, but basically all three were getting what they want. For the analysts and networks it was money (for their businesses and through ratings for the networks). For the Pentagon it was a "credible" voice to dispel their BS.
This is capitalism at it's worst. None of these people were being moral, ethical or patriotic. They were all angling for their individual benefit to the detriment of the US and its citizens.
Is there anyone left who actually cares about doing the right thing for America or has everyone turned to just chasing money and power regardless of the consequences?
There are way too many amazing things in this story to cover all here, but some of the most distressing passages include:
"Some analysts said that even before the war started they privately had questions about the justification for the invasion, but were careful not to express them on air."
"Some email messages between the Pentagon and the analysts reveal an implicit trade of privileged access for favorable coverage."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
It's really long (3 1/2 full pages in the Sunday NY TImes), so I'll summarize:
Since before the Iraq war, the Pentagon (and later Attorney General Gonzales) has used retired military "experts" to "amplify" the White House's messages on the major news networks' coverage of the war. They pumped out talking points on weapons of mass destruction, that things were going well, that we didn't need more troops, etc. etc.
The rub is that almost all of these retired military men are still connected to the military industrial complex. They are either CEOs, Board members, consultants or lobbyists for defense companies and clients. In return for being talking heads for the administration, these patriots got inside access to the Pentagon's leaders which they could use to grow their businesses. And if they criticized the administration on air, there was the potential that they would lose their inside access and even their companies' contracts.
I don't know who is most at fault in this, the Pentagon, the retired "military analysts", or the networks for being complicit, but basically all three were getting what they want. For the analysts and networks it was money (for their businesses and through ratings for the networks). For the Pentagon it was a "credible" voice to dispel their BS.
This is capitalism at it's worst. None of these people were being moral, ethical or patriotic. They were all angling for their individual benefit to the detriment of the US and its citizens.
Is there anyone left who actually cares about doing the right thing for America or has everyone turned to just chasing money and power regardless of the consequences?
There are way too many amazing things in this story to cover all here, but some of the most distressing passages include:
"Some analysts said that even before the war started they privately had questions about the justification for the invasion, but were careful not to express them on air."
"Some email messages between the Pentagon and the analysts reveal an implicit trade of privileged access for favorable coverage."
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Stuff about George Bush and the Pope
Check out The Daily Show's coverage of the Pope's visit to the White House.
The whole thing is very funny, but the most amazing piece is at the 6 minute mark where you can hear George Bush's reaction to the Pope's speech. It's amazing. He's like a little child. I'm not really a Pope worshipper but I would think he expects and deserves a little more formality and respect than Bush afforded him.
Can we go back to having a President who isn't an average Joe? Please!
The whole thing is very funny, but the most amazing piece is at the 6 minute mark where you can hear George Bush's reaction to the Pope's speech. It's amazing. He's like a little child. I'm not really a Pope worshipper but I would think he expects and deserves a little more formality and respect than Bush afforded him.
Can we go back to having a President who isn't an average Joe? Please!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Stuff about Luang Prabang
This is why tourism sucks: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/world/asia/15laos.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I love traveling as much (if not more) than the next person, but it is a tenuous activity. Even if you embrace the culture while you're there, you're still changing that same culture by being there. Go anywhere that is off-the-beaten path and you are in effect, beating the path down and making that place what you are trying to escape.
It's sad to see and even more sad to be a part of. 100 years from now, if the Earth makes it that long, we will be one gigantic strip mall of Starbucks, McDonalds and KFCs.
On the other side though, if poorer places like Luang Prabang (and Laos in general), can lift their standard of living by inviting tourism (consequently sacrificing their culture), isn't that their prerogative? Who are we to say whether that is a bad thing or a good thing. It's a delicate balance w/ no clear answer unfortunately.
Anyway, it's sad to hear that Luang Prabang is losing it's culture b/c of too many tourists. However, it's only sad to me b/c I've been there already and been one of those tourists, so what does that make me?
If you are gonna go there, make sure to check out the 2 sets of waterfalls outside of the city. Stunning and great swimming holes.
I love traveling as much (if not more) than the next person, but it is a tenuous activity. Even if you embrace the culture while you're there, you're still changing that same culture by being there. Go anywhere that is off-the-beaten path and you are in effect, beating the path down and making that place what you are trying to escape.
It's sad to see and even more sad to be a part of. 100 years from now, if the Earth makes it that long, we will be one gigantic strip mall of Starbucks, McDonalds and KFCs.
On the other side though, if poorer places like Luang Prabang (and Laos in general), can lift their standard of living by inviting tourism (consequently sacrificing their culture), isn't that their prerogative? Who are we to say whether that is a bad thing or a good thing. It's a delicate balance w/ no clear answer unfortunately.
Anyway, it's sad to hear that Luang Prabang is losing it's culture b/c of too many tourists. However, it's only sad to me b/c I've been there already and been one of those tourists, so what does that make me?
If you are gonna go there, make sure to check out the 2 sets of waterfalls outside of the city. Stunning and great swimming holes.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Stuff about Colombia
My apologies to all I offended in misspelling the country Colombia. I meant no disrespect. It was right there in the article and I should have gotten it right. Thank you to the commenter for pointing it out. (and I agree w/ your view on ColUmbia also).
Let me say here that I love Colombia. Any country that kills it's defender for scoring an own goal in the '94 World Cup has my respect!
Let me say here that I love Colombia. Any country that kills it's defender for scoring an own goal in the '94 World Cup has my respect!
The Offside Rules: Gossip Gossip Gossip: Riquelme to MLS
The Offside Rules: Gossip Gossip Gossip: Riquelme to MLS
My boy Shawn commented on a great rumor: Juan Roman Riquelme (currently 25th in the world in EPL Fantasy) might be coming to the MLS. I'd get that jersey.
My boy Shawn commented on a great rumor: Juan Roman Riquelme (currently 25th in the world in EPL Fantasy) might be coming to the MLS. I'd get that jersey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
