The OC Disorder

Unemployed! Economy in the tank! Doomed!

I haven’t seen all the movies Steven Spielberg have directed, but here’s a list of movies I’ve really liked and not liked.

Best

• Schindler’s List: One of the most perfect movies ever in terms of portraying a historical event.
• Minority Report: I remember having a lot of fun watching this movie in the theater.  Excellent action, style, and cinematography.  Great sci-fi mystery story.  I love the dual sleek and gritty portrayal of the future.
• Jurassic Park: A fun, mindless adventure movie that beats the 4th Indiana Jones by miles.
• Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The Indiana Jones character finally evolves into maturity.  The Holy Grail story is not just the cup, but the father-son bond.
• E.T: The Extra-Terrestrial:  A playful story about a boy and his alien friend with a great 3rd act (which is rare).

Disappointing

• Munich: A movie with so much anticipation.  I hated the sluggish pacing, the washed-out look, and really petty attempts at humor.  Geoffrey Rush as the comical accountant?  Ugh.
• War of the Worlds: Spielberg loves centering on broken family units, but he miscalculated with War of the Worlds.  I hated the plot point about the son wanting to get away and see the alien devastation.  Then he suddenly reappears at the end.  Is this suppose to be a lesson about trust?
• Hook: I’ve never liked the look and tone of this movie.  Too much brown.  Rufi!  Ohhhh!  Ugh.  Just makes me want to punch all the kids in the face.
• Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: Really, really disappointing.  Too much CGI, unfamiliar characters (what’s up with the English guys?), and that lame vine swinging sequence.  Oh yeah, it’s another movie that Spielberg ruins by injecting aliens into the ending (see A.I.).

Officially licensed from the film Anchorman! Rumor is this release of Sex Panther is in preparation for an Anchorman sequel (currently in pre-production).

Here is an example of a badly written op-ed by Matthew Miller: A Pre-Nup for the West Wing (Washington Post)

Do you remember that scene from the movie Big where Tom Hank’s character, Josh, is watching a presentation about a new toy robot that turns into a skyscraper?  His comment was, “I don’t get it.”  The presenter angrily retorts, “What don’t you get?”  Josh then explains that the toy isn’t effectively a toy.  There’s nothing fun about it.  It fails as a toy.  I feel like that with Miller’s op-ed piece.  There’s nothing persuasive about it.  It fails as an op-ed.

Miller’s argues that presidential staff should sign contracts that would prevent them from selling tell-all books about the inner workings of the White House.  The op-ed is a convoluted and badly written mess because nowhere in the piece does Miller explain why such an act is wrong, immoral, or unethical.  He simply assumes that everyone knows why “betrayal” by staff members is bad and never gives us a clear, logical rational to the consequences of tell-all books.

A basic rule of argumentative writing is to put the thesis–the claim–at the very beginning of an essay, which Miller does: “But if the next president really wants to transform the culture of Washington, he’ll go further and close down another revolving door: the ability of top aides to cash in by peddling tales of what they saw.”  Unfortunately, Miller never clearly explains how “peddling tales” negatively effects the culture of Washington.  He spends the rest of the essay talking about past aides that sold their stories, using words like “betrayal,” “ethics,” and “taint,” and spelling out metaphors involving mergers, marriages, and celebrities.

Maybe Miller wants us to figure out for ourselves the ethical dilemma of selling personal stories involving the president.  However, argumentative writing is not just about persuading the audience, but informing us as well.  Miller doesn’t really inform us about the ethical dilemma, but just rants about how this vague dilemma should stop.  Miller also irrationally argues that since celebrities keep their maids and housekeepers quiet with confidentiality agreements, then the president should be able to do the same.  My instant thought was that celebrities aren’t public officials.  They should be able to keep their lives private.  Presidential business is the business of an open, democratic government.  Government staff should be able to express their personal stories and thoughts about working in the White House, barring any danger to national security.  It’s part of the historical narrative.  If our history is only written by the president, it deprives us from multiple prespectives.

If Miller wants to improve his persuasiveness, he should clearly write out a logical line of reasoning about how tell-all books about presidential business is wrong.  Who does it hurt, other than the president?  Why is it an ethical breach?  Which ethical values are being violated, other than trust?  If trust is breached, why is that bad?  Are they any positive outcomes to disclosure?  What are some examples of negative outcomes to tell-all books?  These are all questions posed by Miller’s essay that are left unanswered.  In the end, Miller leaves a reader, like me, more confused than informed.

I wish you luck with your singing career. I think you hit your peak, literally, around 2:28.

Not Safe for WORK.

Well…I guess it’s okay if you have headphones. Your co-workers will look at you funny but you won’t get fired.

A few nights ago, some of the guys and I got bored after playing Mario Kart on the Wii.  Since the Wii can browse the Internet, I decided to finally show what the guys have refused to see: 2 Girls 1 Cup.  This was a video so disgusting, even I initially did not want to propogate it when I first saw it a long time ago.  But what changed my mind?  I needed the laugh.

After the utter horror and profuse laughter, Bach–of all guys–propose watching “I love the fishies.”  He’s never seen it–so he claims–and curiosity got him.  Also I think he was still high on watching 2 Girls 1 Cup.  So after a grueling search using the tedious Wii keyboard interface (blame Robert), we saw 2 girls (again!), tiny eels, and a funnel.  More horror and profuse laughter ensue.

This led us to seeing reaction videos on YouTube, which are funny, especially when you know what these victims are seeing.  Unfortunately, one of the recommended videos perked our curiosity for “Salsa Snack.”  I think we unanimously agreed we needed to see this one to complete the triumvirate of disgust.  And digusting it was.  How can I say this?  Uh….scat….in the…wrong holes……ugh.

The question now is: “Which videos are worse?”  Here’s my ranking…

1.  2 Girls 1 Cup: It’s long and it gets worse every second.

2.  Salsa Snack: Still horrible, but it’s like 2 Girls 1 Cup in 5 seconds.

3.  I Love the Fishies: It doesn’t make you throw up, but it’s “jaw-drop” shocking.

I invite Tony, Robert, and Bach to rank them as well.  For everyone else, don’t say I didn’t warn you!

I thought about Tony’s question of favorite movies.  It’s tough to put favorite movies all into one list because of the mixed genres.  So here’s a quick, but not a definitive list of my favorite movies in separate categories.

Read the rest of this entry »

I stumbled on unnecessaryknowledge.com and got this hilarious “fact.”  But after some quick Googling, it was a myth.  Idiots!  Then Ron found another fun “fact” that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made structure visible from space.  WRONG! Another fact Ron found: 1 in 10 people live on an island.  I can’t absolutely debunk that yet, but it sounds quite implausible.  The only thing I’ve found to support that so-called fact is this website that also seems dubious.  Obviously, they don’t police these nuggets of knowledge.  They just lose all legitimacy.  It makes me want to deliberately put up lies.  Unlike Wikipedia, where if I put up lies, chances are good that it gets corrected quickly.  Unnecessaryknowledge.com?  Way to fail.

For the first debate is suppose to be about foreign policy, but it seems economics will dominate.  To help us get through the drudgery of politicking, double-speak, and one-upmanship, here’s a simple drinking game I started drafting.  Any more ideas?  (PDF coming soon for easy print out)

One chug if…

• McCain says “my friends,” “country first,” or calls Obama inexperienced
• Obama says “change,” “more of the same,” or calls McCain out of touch

Two chugs if…

• McCain mentions being a POW or claims Obama will raise taxes
• Obama mentions his tax cuts or accuses McCain of deregulating the markets

Three chugs if…

• McCain smiles creepily or praises Sarah Palin
• Obama mentions being a community organizer or criticizes Sarah Palin