Well, I guess you guys don't like economics talk that much. I swear, I think I could hear crickets chirping after that last post. Oh well, just further confirmation of what I've always thought (that I'm a huge nerd).
Won't be a whole lot in the way of significant content this week (I can hear the disappointment now) as Christy and I are currently relaxing with the Ps down in Houston. Considering that our last "vacation" over Christmas was spent packing and moving to our new place, it has been over a year since our last real break and it feels great to be able to sit back and not even have marathon training or the CPA hanging over my head. So far we've attended a Cubs game (they lost), hit up a casino in Lake Charles, LA (I lost $150 because blackjack is an evil, evil game), and got a little golfing in, which we're also doing tomorrow morning. Also will be working at Windy City Pizza for a few hours tomorrow night before going to see The Dark Knight. Judging by the amount of money it made this past weekend, apparently Christy and I will be the last 2 people in America to see it. Then we're taking the nieces and nephews to see Wall-E on Wednesday. In between all of that I have also finally started reading War and Peace. It's very strange to be over 200 pages into a book and feel like I'm still at the very beginning. The goal will be to get through it by the end of the summer, though I have a feeling that as soon as I get over halfway I'll power my way through to the end. Believe it or not, it's actually a pretty easy book to read. It just takes a little while each time to get used to Tolstoy's rhythm but once you do the pages just fly by. He also writes very short chapters so even though it's so monstrously long you always feel like you're making progress on it.
For any fellow movie nerds like me, just wanted to take a moment to do some advertising for Deep Discount DVD. This week they are running a buy 1 get 1 free on all Criterion Collection DVDs. For those movies which have yet to come out on Blu-Ray, Criterion is the top of the line version you can get in terms of both transfer quality and special features. I already have a lot of my favorites, but I just picked up Dazed and Confused and Ran (the last of my favorite Kurosawa films that I didn't have). Some of the ones I would particularly recommend are Brazil (of course), Hoop Dreams, Harakiri, The Bicycle Thief and 8 and a half (two classic Italian masterpieces), any of the other Kurosawa films (Seven Samurai, Ikiru, Rashomon, Kagemusha, Throne of Blood, and the Hidden Fortress), as well as any of the Ingmar Bergman films (The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries are two of my favorites but you really can't go wrong). At an average of about $32 per film, that means you can get these for ~$16 each when bought in pairs. That's a steal. Here ends the advertisement.
OK, think that's about it for now and will probably be the last update of the week. I'll be spending the rest of the week relaxing, recharging, and undoubtedly coming up with more topics to either interest (hopefully) or bore (more likely) all of you.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Sometimes the Truth Makes for Bad Politics
So, Phil Gramm (and, by association, John McCain) caught some slack last week for saying "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession" and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners." Looking at this strictly from a political standpoint, these are incredibly stupid comments to make and constitutes a signifigant political gaffe for someone who, up until a few days ago at least, has been repeatedly referred to as "John McCain's top economic advisor." If there actually was a book titled "Campaigning 101", I'm pretty sure that somewhere near the top of the list of things not to do would be "Do not refer to the constituency as whiners, and do not tell them that their problems are imaginary." The response from both candidates was, of course, completely predictable. McCain leapt to the defensive, saying "Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I speak for me. I strongly disagree" while Obama came out with "When people are out there losing their homes and property values are declining, that's not a figment of your imagination." So, in the end we have a seeming non-starter where both candidates agree that Phil Gramm is wrong. Well, that's all well and good except for the tiny little problem that Phil Gramm's actually right.
Don't get me wrong. The economy is certainly not soaring right now. But neither is it as horrible as most people believe. On Friday, a poll was released which said that consumer confidence is currently hovering around a 28-year low. Really? Do people, as a whole, really think that our economy is in as bad a shape now as it was in 1980? In that year, consumer sentiment reached its low point in May at 51.7, but for the 1st half of the year it averaged 58.9. Right now we are at 56.6. Consumer's fears turned out to be pretty well-founded in 1980, as real GDP declined by a whopping 7.8% (the largest drop since 1958 and a drop that is over 2.5 times anything we've seen since). As it stands right now, we have had a pretty anemic 6 months (with real GDP increasing an average of .8%) compared with our 50-year average of 3.4%. The numbers for the 2Q2008 aren't out yet, but the number is expected to be small but positive or, at the worst, a slight negative. Certainly nothing on the order of even negative 2 or 3% (as what occurred during our last official recession in 90/91). On the unemployment side, statistics for June place it at 5.5%, which is higher than it's been for the last 4 years but about average for the last 50. In 1980, it was around 7.5%. On top of that, the upside to a weakening dollar has been a booming export business and a substantial increase to foreign tourists visting the U.S.
Again, I am not trying to say that people's struggles are not real. In fact, I know of 2 people that have been laid off in the last week. As I've indicated a number of times on this blog, I have not been a fan of this current administration's fiscal policies and I do not believe that it has served us well. However, I believe that it is still absolutely correct to say that the current sentiments about the economy are, at the very least, an overreaction. As case in point, just take a look at the different tone communicated between this article and this one. Even if you don't feel like reading the article (and I know you don't), just look at the difference in what the headlines imply. And the two articles share a common author! You might think that this is merely semantics, but it is much more than that. The economy sometimes really does function like The Matrix ("your mind makes it real"). If people believe that times are really tight and they need to save up every penny and stop consuming, all of their worst fears will come to fruition.
High gas prices, a horrible housing market, and the credit crisis are all very real and negative forces. I will use a hated term here, but in each of these situations the market is really and truly experiencing a correction. Gas prices are being driven up by increasing demand, both seasonally from the U.S., and internationally by permanent increased (and rising) use. It will not always be $4.00/gallon, but cheap gas (i.e. under $2.00) is gone for good. We will have to adjust (and if you look at plunging truck and SUV sales for the year, we are). As for the housing market, if you bought your home in 2004-2006, odds are that you're not very happy right now, and for good reason. But if you bought before then, unless you are in one of the couple areas hit unbelievably hard chances are good that your house is still worth more today than when you bought it, and it's a virtual certainty if you bought in 2000 or before. People are often victims of what I refer to as the "gambler's mentality", which means that whenever they get "up" money that amount instantly becomes the floor below which everything is considered a loss. As an example, imagine someone walking up to you and saying "I just lost $5000 at the blackjack table" and then you find out that what actually happened was that he started with $100, got up to $5000 and then proceeded to lose it all. The reality is that he actually lost $100, but it "feels" like he lost $5000. Similarly, people who bought their house in 2000 at $150,000 probably saw their value double in 5 years and now they've had it sink back to $175,000 (yes, I am making these numbers up). It "feels" like they've lost $125k, but in reality they've gained $25k. Of course, that leads right into the credit problem, because some of those in the last example took out $100k home equity loans, and now they really well and truly are in the hole. That's why it has also been a correction for credit to tighten up.
The key here is to understand that what's happening is not "the sky is falling." It takes a series of significant setbacks to derail the economy and when the stars align and they happen it can be devastating. The last time we experienced something similar was the simultaneous dot-com crash and Enron/Worldcom scandals, and a year plus of negative and then lackluster growth resulted. But the underlying institutions and "machinery" of the economy were sound then and we pulled through it and the same is true today. The key is that I believe that these current crises have largely played themselves out. By that I mean that at this point we have a good sense of how much damage has been done (something that could not be said immediately after the sub-prime failures and Bear Stearns debachle) and that the worst is behind us. It will still take a while, but housing prices will start to go back up again (though it's not likely to rise to the meteoric levels it was at for quite some time) and credit will be cheap again (though probably not as cheap as it was). If you want my prediction (and even if you don't) I think we're likely to pull out of this sooner than later. The end of summer will see demand-driven gas prices decline somewhat, which should help. And the excitement of the presidential race (and subsequent exit of a very unpopular president) should serve to raise the nation's spirits. And right on the heels of the election we will jump right into the holiday season which should prove to be a nice boon for businesses. GDP growth for the rest of the year is still likely to be relatively low (on the order of 1 - 1.5%) but it should boost consumer confidence, which should in turn boost growth in subsequent quarters.
So, yeah, if I had any money to invest I'd look to do it around late September/early October. Of course, another financial or international crisis between now and then and all bets are off.
Don't get me wrong. The economy is certainly not soaring right now. But neither is it as horrible as most people believe. On Friday, a poll was released which said that consumer confidence is currently hovering around a 28-year low. Really? Do people, as a whole, really think that our economy is in as bad a shape now as it was in 1980? In that year, consumer sentiment reached its low point in May at 51.7, but for the 1st half of the year it averaged 58.9. Right now we are at 56.6. Consumer's fears turned out to be pretty well-founded in 1980, as real GDP declined by a whopping 7.8% (the largest drop since 1958 and a drop that is over 2.5 times anything we've seen since). As it stands right now, we have had a pretty anemic 6 months (with real GDP increasing an average of .8%) compared with our 50-year average of 3.4%. The numbers for the 2Q2008 aren't out yet, but the number is expected to be small but positive or, at the worst, a slight negative. Certainly nothing on the order of even negative 2 or 3% (as what occurred during our last official recession in 90/91). On the unemployment side, statistics for June place it at 5.5%, which is higher than it's been for the last 4 years but about average for the last 50. In 1980, it was around 7.5%. On top of that, the upside to a weakening dollar has been a booming export business and a substantial increase to foreign tourists visting the U.S.
Again, I am not trying to say that people's struggles are not real. In fact, I know of 2 people that have been laid off in the last week. As I've indicated a number of times on this blog, I have not been a fan of this current administration's fiscal policies and I do not believe that it has served us well. However, I believe that it is still absolutely correct to say that the current sentiments about the economy are, at the very least, an overreaction. As case in point, just take a look at the different tone communicated between this article and this one. Even if you don't feel like reading the article (and I know you don't), just look at the difference in what the headlines imply. And the two articles share a common author! You might think that this is merely semantics, but it is much more than that. The economy sometimes really does function like The Matrix ("your mind makes it real"). If people believe that times are really tight and they need to save up every penny and stop consuming, all of their worst fears will come to fruition.
High gas prices, a horrible housing market, and the credit crisis are all very real and negative forces. I will use a hated term here, but in each of these situations the market is really and truly experiencing a correction. Gas prices are being driven up by increasing demand, both seasonally from the U.S., and internationally by permanent increased (and rising) use. It will not always be $4.00/gallon, but cheap gas (i.e. under $2.00) is gone for good. We will have to adjust (and if you look at plunging truck and SUV sales for the year, we are). As for the housing market, if you bought your home in 2004-2006, odds are that you're not very happy right now, and for good reason. But if you bought before then, unless you are in one of the couple areas hit unbelievably hard chances are good that your house is still worth more today than when you bought it, and it's a virtual certainty if you bought in 2000 or before. People are often victims of what I refer to as the "gambler's mentality", which means that whenever they get "up" money that amount instantly becomes the floor below which everything is considered a loss. As an example, imagine someone walking up to you and saying "I just lost $5000 at the blackjack table" and then you find out that what actually happened was that he started with $100, got up to $5000 and then proceeded to lose it all. The reality is that he actually lost $100, but it "feels" like he lost $5000. Similarly, people who bought their house in 2000 at $150,000 probably saw their value double in 5 years and now they've had it sink back to $175,000 (yes, I am making these numbers up). It "feels" like they've lost $125k, but in reality they've gained $25k. Of course, that leads right into the credit problem, because some of those in the last example took out $100k home equity loans, and now they really well and truly are in the hole. That's why it has also been a correction for credit to tighten up.
The key here is to understand that what's happening is not "the sky is falling." It takes a series of significant setbacks to derail the economy and when the stars align and they happen it can be devastating. The last time we experienced something similar was the simultaneous dot-com crash and Enron/Worldcom scandals, and a year plus of negative and then lackluster growth resulted. But the underlying institutions and "machinery" of the economy were sound then and we pulled through it and the same is true today. The key is that I believe that these current crises have largely played themselves out. By that I mean that at this point we have a good sense of how much damage has been done (something that could not be said immediately after the sub-prime failures and Bear Stearns debachle) and that the worst is behind us. It will still take a while, but housing prices will start to go back up again (though it's not likely to rise to the meteoric levels it was at for quite some time) and credit will be cheap again (though probably not as cheap as it was). If you want my prediction (and even if you don't) I think we're likely to pull out of this sooner than later. The end of summer will see demand-driven gas prices decline somewhat, which should help. And the excitement of the presidential race (and subsequent exit of a very unpopular president) should serve to raise the nation's spirits. And right on the heels of the election we will jump right into the holiday season which should prove to be a nice boon for businesses. GDP growth for the rest of the year is still likely to be relatively low (on the order of 1 - 1.5%) but it should boost consumer confidence, which should in turn boost growth in subsequent quarters.
So, yeah, if I had any money to invest I'd look to do it around late September/early October. Of course, another financial or international crisis between now and then and all bets are off.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Dead or Not Dead
OK, so I certainly am not intending to stymie any lingering thoughts on movies, but I've actually had another post written for a while that I was waiting for the Roundtable to be done with to post. In any case, feel free to keep commenting on movies. My Netflix queue has already gotten a few additions to it and I'd always like more.
So, as everybody knows, a few weeks ago George Carlin died. I really have nothing to say in tribute to him that hasn't already been said, and better, by 1000 other people, namely all the comedians performing today that he influenced. Christy and I got a chance to see him last year on what turns out to be his final tour. I'd love to say that he was amazing, but honestly, he was just a shell of his former self. If I had to be even more honest, I'd have to say that he hadn't really been at the top of his game for about 15 years. Right after his death, HBO Comedy ran all of his stand-up specials back-to-back for a week straight. I'd seen them all before but it was great to get to see them in sequence. And it's absolutely amazing to see the transformation that occurs. Carlin always had a political bent to him, but in his younger days he also had a zaniness and such physical skill with his gestures, facial expressions, and above all his perfect timing that even if he said something politics-wise that you didn't agree with it was still hard to stop yourself from laughing. Gradually, though, you see the zany, goofy side of him give way to a more curmudgeony, bitter personality and, even though a lot of it was still funny, the balance that made him so much better than almost everybody else was forever gone. And you can almost pinpoint the exact moment it happens: in What Am I Doing in New Jersey (1988) and Doin' It Again (1990) he still has that balance - barely - but then by Jammin' In New York (1992) it's gone for good. Just looking at the titles of his last 4 specials tells you everything you need to know: You Are All Diseased, Complaints and Grievances, Life Is Worth Losing, and It's Bad For Ya!. The point here is that I think there's a lot of people my age and younger that are only familiar with the "lesser Carlin" and don't realize how unbelievably awesome and ground-breaking and, above all, downright hilarious he was for most of his career. If you fall into that category (or even if you don't) do yourself a favor and queue up some of his older specials in your Netflix account: I guarantee you won't regret it!(Note: guarantee void in Illinois)
In any case, I was trying to think about a way to pay tribute to him in a somewhat unique way. I think one of his hallmarks throughout his career was how he never shied away from taboo topics, including (and later, especially) death. So, in the name of morbid humor, I thought it'd be fun to play a round of everybody's favorite game: Dead or Not Dead? Below is a list of 15 actors (all of which were alive as of 1/1/2000); see how many you're correctly able to classify withtheir current breathing status:
1. Abe Vigoda
2. Conrad Bain (aka Mr. Drummond from Diff’rent Strokes)
3. Andy Griffith
4. Bob Hope
5. Roy Scheider
6. Richard Harris
7. Peter O’Toole
8. Alec Guiness
9. James Doohan (aka Scotty from Star Trek)
10. James Garner
11. Charles Bronson
12. Gene Wilder
13. Don Adams (aka the original Maxwell Smart)
14. Bob Newhart
15. John Astin (aka the original Gomez Adams)
OK, and just to break up the questions from the answers, here's this:
1. Not dead! This has been a running joke since People magazine erroneously reported him dead in 1982. The website abevigoda.com is a single page that only lists his current status.
2. Not dead! Given the fate of the rest of the cast of Diff’rent Strokes, I thought that for sure he didn’t have a chance. As a humorous tidbit, the last thing he has ever appeared in (to date) was the last episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air where he and Gary Coleman (as Mr. Drummond and Arnold Jackson) showed up to buy the Banks’ mansion. What I wouldn’t have given to have been in that writer’s room when that idea was pitched. “I have absolutely no idea how to end this show and, let’s face it, no one’s watching anyway. Do you remember that show from 10 years ago with that rich white guy and the really short black kid? Let’s just have them show up and buy the place . . .”
3. Not dead and still working! Although, he has started playing characters that die during the movie, and that’s gotta weigh on you after a while.
4. Dead (7/27/03), though not before making it past the century mark. Hey, give me 100 Bob Hope or George Burns years and I’ll die happy.
5. Dead (2/10/08); this was one of those where when I read that he died I thought “hasn’t he been dead for like 20 years.” I mean, does anybody remember him in any movie other than Jaws?
6. Dead (10/25/02); most younger people would only know him as Dumbledore in the first 2 Harry Potter movies, but this guy was legendary for his drunken debauchery in his early days and it’s a wonder that he made it to 72. As just one example, from a story reporting his death it was said that “film directors would add at least a week to their shooting schedules if Mr. Harris was a member of the cast, just to account for the days they assumed he would be drunk.”
7. Not dead and also still working! Although he looks like he’s about 95, he’s actually only 76. I assume that this is a direct result of hanging out with the afore mentioned Richard Harris so much in his early days.
8. Dead (8/5/00). Although rumor has it that when he was struck down he became more powerful than we can possibly imagine.
9. Beamed up on 7/20/05. I thought he was in his mid-70s when he died but discovered he was actually 85. Perhaps I thought that because I couldn’t possibly imagine that he was a 74-year-old still playing an engineer in Star Trek: Generations in 1994.
10. The original Maverick is still alive and kicking! According to imdb he’s been in over 90 tvs and movies, yet I can’t think of a single other thing he’s been in besides that.
11. Dead (8/30/03). Insert your own Death Wish joke here.
12. Not dead but retired. How do you survive See No Evil, Hear No Evil without tarnishing your legacy? You make The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory before that. His auto-biography Kiss Me Like a Stranger is a really good, generally light-hearted read.
13. Would you believe not dead? If not, you’d be right, cause he is (9/25/05)
14. Not dead, though by looking at his imdb page picture you wouldn’t know it.
15. Not dead! Noteworthy because, besides the kids, he’s the only original Addams Family member still alive. He even outlived his Gomez Addams successor (Raul Julia). That’s creepy (as well as kooky, mysterious, and ooky). Actually, what the hell does ooky mean? That’s a filler “we’ll put this in here till we think of the real line” line if I’ve ever heard one!
So, as everybody knows, a few weeks ago George Carlin died. I really have nothing to say in tribute to him that hasn't already been said, and better, by 1000 other people, namely all the comedians performing today that he influenced. Christy and I got a chance to see him last year on what turns out to be his final tour. I'd love to say that he was amazing, but honestly, he was just a shell of his former self. If I had to be even more honest, I'd have to say that he hadn't really been at the top of his game for about 15 years. Right after his death, HBO Comedy ran all of his stand-up specials back-to-back for a week straight. I'd seen them all before but it was great to get to see them in sequence. And it's absolutely amazing to see the transformation that occurs. Carlin always had a political bent to him, but in his younger days he also had a zaniness and such physical skill with his gestures, facial expressions, and above all his perfect timing that even if he said something politics-wise that you didn't agree with it was still hard to stop yourself from laughing. Gradually, though, you see the zany, goofy side of him give way to a more curmudgeony, bitter personality and, even though a lot of it was still funny, the balance that made him so much better than almost everybody else was forever gone. And you can almost pinpoint the exact moment it happens: in What Am I Doing in New Jersey (1988) and Doin' It Again (1990) he still has that balance - barely - but then by Jammin' In New York (1992) it's gone for good. Just looking at the titles of his last 4 specials tells you everything you need to know: You Are All Diseased, Complaints and Grievances, Life Is Worth Losing, and It's Bad For Ya!. The point here is that I think there's a lot of people my age and younger that are only familiar with the "lesser Carlin" and don't realize how unbelievably awesome and ground-breaking and, above all, downright hilarious he was for most of his career. If you fall into that category (or even if you don't) do yourself a favor and queue up some of his older specials in your Netflix account: I guarantee you won't regret it!(Note: guarantee void in Illinois)
In any case, I was trying to think about a way to pay tribute to him in a somewhat unique way. I think one of his hallmarks throughout his career was how he never shied away from taboo topics, including (and later, especially) death. So, in the name of morbid humor, I thought it'd be fun to play a round of everybody's favorite game: Dead or Not Dead? Below is a list of 15 actors (all of which were alive as of 1/1/2000); see how many you're correctly able to classify withtheir current breathing status:
1. Abe Vigoda
2. Conrad Bain (aka Mr. Drummond from Diff’rent Strokes)
3. Andy Griffith
4. Bob Hope
5. Roy Scheider
6. Richard Harris
7. Peter O’Toole
8. Alec Guiness
9. James Doohan (aka Scotty from Star Trek)
10. James Garner
11. Charles Bronson
12. Gene Wilder
13. Don Adams (aka the original Maxwell Smart)
14. Bob Newhart
15. John Astin (aka the original Gomez Adams)
OK, and just to break up the questions from the answers, here's this:
1. Not dead! This has been a running joke since People magazine erroneously reported him dead in 1982. The website abevigoda.com is a single page that only lists his current status.
2. Not dead! Given the fate of the rest of the cast of Diff’rent Strokes, I thought that for sure he didn’t have a chance. As a humorous tidbit, the last thing he has ever appeared in (to date) was the last episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air where he and Gary Coleman (as Mr. Drummond and Arnold Jackson) showed up to buy the Banks’ mansion. What I wouldn’t have given to have been in that writer’s room when that idea was pitched. “I have absolutely no idea how to end this show and, let’s face it, no one’s watching anyway. Do you remember that show from 10 years ago with that rich white guy and the really short black kid? Let’s just have them show up and buy the place . . .”
3. Not dead and still working! Although, he has started playing characters that die during the movie, and that’s gotta weigh on you after a while.
4. Dead (7/27/03), though not before making it past the century mark. Hey, give me 100 Bob Hope or George Burns years and I’ll die happy.
5. Dead (2/10/08); this was one of those where when I read that he died I thought “hasn’t he been dead for like 20 years.” I mean, does anybody remember him in any movie other than Jaws?
6. Dead (10/25/02); most younger people would only know him as Dumbledore in the first 2 Harry Potter movies, but this guy was legendary for his drunken debauchery in his early days and it’s a wonder that he made it to 72. As just one example, from a story reporting his death it was said that “film directors would add at least a week to their shooting schedules if Mr. Harris was a member of the cast, just to account for the days they assumed he would be drunk.”
7. Not dead and also still working! Although he looks like he’s about 95, he’s actually only 76. I assume that this is a direct result of hanging out with the afore mentioned Richard Harris so much in his early days.
8. Dead (8/5/00). Although rumor has it that when he was struck down he became more powerful than we can possibly imagine.
9. Beamed up on 7/20/05. I thought he was in his mid-70s when he died but discovered he was actually 85. Perhaps I thought that because I couldn’t possibly imagine that he was a 74-year-old still playing an engineer in Star Trek: Generations in 1994.
10. The original Maverick is still alive and kicking! According to imdb he’s been in over 90 tvs and movies, yet I can’t think of a single other thing he’s been in besides that.
11. Dead (8/30/03). Insert your own Death Wish joke here.
12. Not dead but retired. How do you survive See No Evil, Hear No Evil without tarnishing your legacy? You make The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory before that. His auto-biography Kiss Me Like a Stranger is a really good, generally light-hearted read.
13. Would you believe not dead? If not, you’d be right, cause he is (9/25/05)
14. Not dead, though by looking at his imdb page picture you wouldn’t know it.
15. Not dead! Noteworthy because, besides the kids, he’s the only original Addams Family member still alive. He even outlived his Gomez Addams successor (Raul Julia). That’s creepy (as well as kooky, mysterious, and ooky). Actually, what the hell does ooky mean? That’s a filler “we’ll put this in here till we think of the real line” line if I’ve ever heard one!
Friday, July 11, 2008
Roundtable - Part V
Before we (at long last) reach the conclusion in this wonderful roundtable experiment, just want to point out a couple changes I made yesterday, just in case you missed them. I now have a "recent comments" list which seems to work, but with a delay. Unlikely my minimal coding skills will be able to approve its functionality much, but it should serve the purpose of at least allowing people to see comments that may have been made to the not-most-recent topic (so Weir and Mike, feel free to continue to argue about FISA). Also, below that I've added some lists of the last 5 movies and the last 5 books I've read, along with a star rating for each of them. I plan to keep this updated, but no promises. Unfortunately, the main content of the blog (i.e. my long-winded ramblings) remains unchanged.
OK, onward to question 5, which is a fun one that I think pretty much everyone can contribute to:
What is your favorite movie of all time? Why? Note that this isn’t necessarily the movie you consider to be the “best”, just your personal favorite. Feel free to go ahead and list some of your other favorites, but keep the discussion centered on just the one.
John
Brazil. This is a film that changes dramatically depending on how you view it. If you view it as a quirky sci-fi story with a confusing plot it is an average movie. However, when you realize that it was intended to be a modern-day satire and commentary on how bureaucracy has infiltrated every facet of our lives it becomes brilliant. Apart from the dream sequences, no more than 2 minutes ever goes by without a joke, but they are almost always subtle and are very easy to miss. Truly a film that gets better with each viewing. Honorable mentions to Trainspotting, The Shining, Mulholland Drive, Hoosiers, Diggstown, and pretty much the entire Kurosawa library (Ikiru, Seven Samurai, and Ran in particular).
Mike
My favorite movie, the one that I can watch just about any time, and I always love like the first time I watched it, is Ferris Bueller’s Day off. I love the entire concept of the film and the fact that, for the most part, anyone can watch it. Its humor is both smart and sophomoric, and the comedic timing of the actors is absolutely perfect. The casting was perfection, with even small parts like the parking garage attendant seeming to get the full attention of the producers and director. And the best part… this movie reminds me to take a day off once in awhile.
Eric
My favorite movie of all time is Casablanca. I can watch this movie over and over without getting bored. I remember seeing it for the first time and saying to myself “Oh, that is where the line comes from” over and over again. It has elements from a variety of different genres including mystery, intrigue, politics, and romance. Naturally at its core it is a love story, but more than that it is about a man struggling to justify his activist past with his non-interference present. It is about a man who must sacrifice for others at the expense of himself. And it is about a man who must voluntarily give up the woman he loves because he knows she will be better off without him. And cmon, its freaking Bogart.
Becky
My favorite movie these days is Life as a House. It takes energy to watch it, but if you’re in the right mood, it’s just the thing. It’s about this guy who finds out he’s dying and so decides to finally tear down the shack he lives in and the build the house he’s been planning in his head his whole adult life. During the course of it, as the blurb says, “he ends up rebuilding the life around him.” He reconnects to his (totally f-ed up, BTW) teenaged son, his ex-wife, even his uppity neighbors. This cinematography is beautiful, the characters interesting, the relationships real, and the plot enjoyable. More importantly, though, is that it manages to ask questions about the nature of human life and love without ever becoming preachy. It feels like more of a meditation on those ideas instead of a definitive thesis. Which I like. And despite the sad subject matter, it’s undeniably, and (this is key) non-cheesily, optimistic.
OK, onward to question 5, which is a fun one that I think pretty much everyone can contribute to:
What is your favorite movie of all time? Why? Note that this isn’t necessarily the movie you consider to be the “best”, just your personal favorite. Feel free to go ahead and list some of your other favorites, but keep the discussion centered on just the one.
John
Brazil. This is a film that changes dramatically depending on how you view it. If you view it as a quirky sci-fi story with a confusing plot it is an average movie. However, when you realize that it was intended to be a modern-day satire and commentary on how bureaucracy has infiltrated every facet of our lives it becomes brilliant. Apart from the dream sequences, no more than 2 minutes ever goes by without a joke, but they are almost always subtle and are very easy to miss. Truly a film that gets better with each viewing. Honorable mentions to Trainspotting, The Shining, Mulholland Drive, Hoosiers, Diggstown, and pretty much the entire Kurosawa library (Ikiru, Seven Samurai, and Ran in particular).
Mike
My favorite movie, the one that I can watch just about any time, and I always love like the first time I watched it, is Ferris Bueller’s Day off. I love the entire concept of the film and the fact that, for the most part, anyone can watch it. Its humor is both smart and sophomoric, and the comedic timing of the actors is absolutely perfect. The casting was perfection, with even small parts like the parking garage attendant seeming to get the full attention of the producers and director. And the best part… this movie reminds me to take a day off once in awhile.
Eric
My favorite movie of all time is Casablanca. I can watch this movie over and over without getting bored. I remember seeing it for the first time and saying to myself “Oh, that is where the line comes from” over and over again. It has elements from a variety of different genres including mystery, intrigue, politics, and romance. Naturally at its core it is a love story, but more than that it is about a man struggling to justify his activist past with his non-interference present. It is about a man who must sacrifice for others at the expense of himself. And it is about a man who must voluntarily give up the woman he loves because he knows she will be better off without him. And cmon, its freaking Bogart.
Becky
My favorite movie these days is Life as a House. It takes energy to watch it, but if you’re in the right mood, it’s just the thing. It’s about this guy who finds out he’s dying and so decides to finally tear down the shack he lives in and the build the house he’s been planning in his head his whole adult life. During the course of it, as the blurb says, “he ends up rebuilding the life around him.” He reconnects to his (totally f-ed up, BTW) teenaged son, his ex-wife, even his uppity neighbors. This cinematography is beautiful, the characters interesting, the relationships real, and the plot enjoyable. More importantly, though, is that it manages to ask questions about the nature of human life and love without ever becoming preachy. It feels like more of a meditation on those ideas instead of a definitive thesis. Which I like. And despite the sad subject matter, it’s undeniably, and (this is key) non-cheesily, optimistic.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Roundtable - Part IV
And on we merrily stumble to question 4, and this time it is Becky who has decided to take a question off.
Identify yourself as either a Republican or a Democrat (for this exercise, no one is allowed to be an independent). If you really can’t decide, the tiebreaker is the party of the person you’re supporting for president in 2008 as of today. Now, name someone from the other side that you admire and describe what you like about them. No cheating (i.e. “I admire X’s naivety and the way he’s able to delude himself that he has the best interest of the country in mind”). For some of you, this one may require substantial research. They don’t have to be currently in office; just someone who is clearly identified with that party. Oh, and they have to still be alive (as of today).
John
By virtue of my own tiebreaker I am a Democrat. As such, I’m going to go with Newt Gingrich. I read his first book in 1996 and he is one of the main reasons I was a Republican for so long. Even now when I hear him speak, I recognize and identify with the logic that brought me to the party (and which, sadly, now seems to have left it). Low taxes, small government, balanced budgets, sign me up! What I respect most about him is that when he gives his view on an issue, it is always consistent and logical with his underlying philosophies. That’s a refreshing change of pace from other politicians who repeat the party line and try to act like it’s consistent with everything else they’ve said, even when it clearly isn’t.
Mike
Republican.
There are quite a few Democrats that have qualities that I admire, and they tend be older democrats that were around before socialism started to creep its way into the party line. Democrat principles of equality, fair treatment of all peoples, individual rights, a strong military, and defense of the liberty for everyone, are values of true patriots in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson… the founder of the Democrat Party, which was formed to fight for the Bill of Rights.
Jimmy Carter is one democrat whom I admire for his distinguished Naval career and his support and work with Habitat for Humanity.
Eric
I am a Democrat. I admire Governor Arnold Shwartzanagger. This is a guy who grew up from nothing. His father was a Police Chief in Austria, and he worked in a health club and attended business school while working out 4-6 hours daily to win his 5 Mr. Universe titles. The guy moved to the US speaking poor English and with a strange and thick accent which has been mocked since he hit the public stage. He won the Governorship by well over 1 million votes each time, and is an insanely popular Governor in one of the most liberal states in the union.
Identify yourself as either a Republican or a Democrat (for this exercise, no one is allowed to be an independent). If you really can’t decide, the tiebreaker is the party of the person you’re supporting for president in 2008 as of today. Now, name someone from the other side that you admire and describe what you like about them. No cheating (i.e. “I admire X’s naivety and the way he’s able to delude himself that he has the best interest of the country in mind”). For some of you, this one may require substantial research. They don’t have to be currently in office; just someone who is clearly identified with that party. Oh, and they have to still be alive (as of today).
John
By virtue of my own tiebreaker I am a Democrat. As such, I’m going to go with Newt Gingrich. I read his first book in 1996 and he is one of the main reasons I was a Republican for so long. Even now when I hear him speak, I recognize and identify with the logic that brought me to the party (and which, sadly, now seems to have left it). Low taxes, small government, balanced budgets, sign me up! What I respect most about him is that when he gives his view on an issue, it is always consistent and logical with his underlying philosophies. That’s a refreshing change of pace from other politicians who repeat the party line and try to act like it’s consistent with everything else they’ve said, even when it clearly isn’t.
Mike
Republican.
There are quite a few Democrats that have qualities that I admire, and they tend be older democrats that were around before socialism started to creep its way into the party line. Democrat principles of equality, fair treatment of all peoples, individual rights, a strong military, and defense of the liberty for everyone, are values of true patriots in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson… the founder of the Democrat Party, which was formed to fight for the Bill of Rights.
Jimmy Carter is one democrat whom I admire for his distinguished Naval career and his support and work with Habitat for Humanity.
Eric
I am a Democrat. I admire Governor Arnold Shwartzanagger. This is a guy who grew up from nothing. His father was a Police Chief in Austria, and he worked in a health club and attended business school while working out 4-6 hours daily to win his 5 Mr. Universe titles. The guy moved to the US speaking poor English and with a strange and thick accent which has been mocked since he hit the public stage. He won the Governorship by well over 1 million votes each time, and is an insanely popular Governor in one of the most liberal states in the union.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
