Monday, 01 November 2010

6K Update:

Okay, so I ran the course again during my lunch break today, marking the ninth time I have done so in less than a month.

I am happy to report that I bested my personal record by approximately 24 seconds. This is good news. What’s even better is that, when I was within site of the finish line, I saw that I was still some two minutes under my best time, so I stopped running and took it easy. I walked for about a minute, then began running again. So, that’s good because, if I can do the same thing on Friday, then I will definitely beat my time.

My plan now, especially in view of having lost a day last week, is to run on Wednesday of this week. However, I don’t want to completely wear myself out, so on Wednesday I will only run to the 1K marker, then turn around and come back. This means I’ll only be running for about a third the normal distance.

If I can do that, I should be in good shape for Friday. Or rather, I’ll be in the best shape I can be in.

Tuesday, 02 November 2010

Today I completed three more in my endless queue of filmlets.

Here they are:

As a personal request, if you do watch them, please subscribe to my page (if you haven’t done so already). Also, feel free to “like” or “dislike” them using the icons shown below each video.

Now let me answer some questions about them:

Q. Why did I make them?

A. Well, I wasn’t going to. I thought the Watchtower Society’s other new brochure from this year, The Origin of Life, much more fascinating from a cult-indoctrination perspective. That’s why I hurriedly created this filmlet. However, as you can see from some of the comments there, a few people asked if I’d be making a similar documentary regarding the other brochure. Additionally, a friend of mine said that he’d been in contact with one of his Witness relatives, and that relative said the brochure Was Life Created bolstered his faith in creationism. Needless to say, I felt I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to point out some of the brochure’s flaws.

Q. Fine, but then what took you so long? These brochures came out last summer, and you finished your other video back in July.

A. As noted here before, two major events (wedding ceremony + subsequent wedding video, and the birth of my daughter) both ensured I wouldn’t finish any personal projects for quite some time. Nevertheless, though the brochures were released  at conventions in the United States during May-September of this year, they are still being released worldwide. Most Asian and south-of-the-Equator nations, for example, still won’t see the brochures for months. So the videos are still very timely.

Q. Okay, but why did you make only one video of the Origin of Life brochure, but three videos discussing Was Life Created?

A. That’s a great question, and I’m glad you asked. you might notice that the Origin of Life video is 9 minutes and 35 seconds long. The three Was Life Created videos, on the other hand, are each around three minutes long. So, the total content is still (nearly) the same.

Q. That doesn’t answer my question.

A. Oh – right, I wasn’t finished. See, here’s something else I realized: the average YouTube user has a very short attention span. Go figure, right? Take a look at my YouTube home page, and you’ll see that the video that has received the most views is this one: Inside the Watchtower Society’s World Headquarters. It’s received thousands of more views than any other videos on my page. It was the most hastily made video on there; it has the lowest production quality; and, in my opinion, it’s the most boring one. So why so many views? It’s gotta be the length. Every other video I’ve uploaded there is between 9 and 10 minutes. So, methinks people get bored. So, I’m trying something new here: brevity! I’m gonna make the prediction that these three videos will, in time, become the three most viewed videos on my page.

Q. Any more Watchtower-related videos coming down the pipeline?

A. I do have another one in the works; but I’ve been struggling with it for several months now. I may just scrap it. Time will tell.

Saturday, 30 October 2010

So, today we returned to the Harriet Alexander Nature Center for the second time in as many weeks. This time, we attended a Halloween party. We brought Owen’s cousin Lyric, too.

First there was a hay ride, which culminated in a treasure find of chocolate coins. Then we went into the nature center. This one professor from the U of M was there, and he had with him a collection of really large insects. There was a scorpion, too. And a millipede. The millipede was about 1/2 an inch in diameter and 4 – 5 inches long. I had to point the millipede out to Owen, because he has asked me which animal has the most legs, and I think I am correct in telling him that it’s a millipede. The sign next to the millipede says they can have between 200 and 240 legs. I think that’s great that a class of animals can have a variance of 40 legs. All of us boring mammals just have four limbs. BORING!

There was one man working there, and when he saw Owen, he said, “I bet I know who you are, except you’re missing a mustache!” Owen just kind of stared at him like he was an idiot (Owen is good at giving people that look – especially since he inherited it from both parents). When Owen didn’t respond, he said, “You’re Groucho Marx, right!”

Um…no…sorry to say, but Owen didn’t ask to dress as someone from his great-grandparents’ generation.

Let’s take a look at Groucho, shall we?

Owen was not only lacking a mustache, he was also lacking a cigar. Owen’s actual costume was Inspector Gadget, which should’ve differentiated him from Groucho in that he had a top hat, a trench coat, a hand coming out of his hat, a magnifying glass, and a wristwatch telephone.

See? Like Gadget:

Sunday, 31 October 2010

Happy Halloween!

Today, we drove to my in-laws’ house, had dinner, then dressed our son once again in Gadget attire and Isla in a dog costume (because she was Gadget’s dog Brain), then went trick-or-treating in the neighborhood with Owen’s two cousins.

Let me tell you, neighborhood trick-or-treating beats the socks off of mall trick-or-treating. Well, actually, if you have real little kids (as we did have in years past), then the malls are nice as they afford a moderate temperature and a well-lit area.

But neighbors give out way more candy – and better quality, too. And no lousy pedicure coupons! One neighbor gave Owen an entire pack of Starbursts and an 18-inch long Pixie Stick. Another lady gave out bags of goodies featuring rulers, a coloring book, and pencils. I twice had to reach into Owen’s pail and empty out some of the contents into my pockets so that he had more room for more treats.

Later, when we returned home to our apartment complex, Owen and I roamed the halls in search of more candy. We got another decent hall, especially from one woman who invited us in, gave Owen a gift bag, and told him to fill it with the candy in her bowl. Sweet.

Friday, 29 October 2010

Three things:

First, I heard this story on the radio this morning: This woman was kicked out of her congregation for appearing in an erectile dysfunction commercial. She won’t say which religion she belongs to, but she uses the term “disfellowshipped” and “congregation,” so I’m gonna take the wild guess that she is (was) a Jehovah’s Witness. I guess starring in an E.D. commercial must be a sin, since it violates that one scripture at…um…wait…where is it? Huh. I just had it here. Hmm. Can’t seem to find it. The commercial is hilarious by the way – make sure you watch it.

Second, I received a call from KQRS this morning. That’s a radio station here in my metro area. They have this page on their site where you can enter your own playlist, and if they choose it, they’ll play your songs and send you a prize package. So, if you feel like tuning in to 92.5 FM on Sunday at noon, you’ll get to hear a few songs that they always play, but that I picked. They’ll probably say my name. Then you can think to yourself: “Hey, I didn’t know James likes this song. Man, he’s such a loser.”

Third, as of today (technically, this weekend, but weekends don’t count), I’ve been employed at my current job for six years, seven months, and 12 days. You might think that’s a pretty lame milestone, but it happens to be one day longer than my tenure at Lenscrafters. I was employed there (from start date, to my day of work), for six years, seven months, and 11 days. So, as of today, my current employer is also my longest employer.

Of course, I’ve already put in more time at my current job than at Lenscrafters, since I was a part-time employee for the first three years and the sixth. I also took off three weeks to go work in New York back in 1994, but I also took off three weeks from my current job when Owen was born and, most recently, six weeks. Also, this already was the longest time I’d been working at one location, since I worked at Lenscrafters Mall of America location for four years, three months before transferring to their Burnsville spot (and then there was the week I worked in Madison, Wisconsin). Still, I think this is a notable milestone.

Congratulations to me.

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

So, here’s another day where I talk about something I didn’t do: I didn’t run the 6K course today.

Yeah, I know, I should have. But the wind was quite strong today. Actually, the wind was quite strong last Thursday, too, but today the wind was so strong that it was the headline news. I’m not sure I could’ve run effectively whilst battling 40 mph gusts.

I suppose you could argue that the gusts would help me for half the race, but I’m not gonna fall for it.

When I got home, I took all the plants off the ledge of our deck and huddled them together in a corner. Owen was continually nervous that the wind was gonna knock down our house, but I tried consoling him with facts such as: “Don’t worry buddy, that stuff only happens in Florida.”

Tonight, my wife was worried that the light post outside Owen’s window would snap off its base and crash through his window. The post sure was rocking, but the wind didn’t seem quite strong enough to uproot it. Still, I did what any good father would do and I went into Owen’s room while he was sleeping and moved him about 6 inches further away from the window.

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

A few weeks ago, I ordered a spoon from Gerber. I ordered a similar such keepsake for Owen five years ago. Back then it was free, but now they charge for it. I ordered it anyway, ’cause I have one from when I was a baby, and I think it’s kind of special to get them a spoon with their name and date of birth on it.

Well, the spoon arrived today, but the monogramming was done very poorly. The words are not centered on the handle, but offset towards one edge. The “I” is missing its top quarter, and the “S” is missing the top curve, which makes it not even look like an “S.”

I complained aloud to Jennifer that I really get annoyed when things get messed up because someone’s not paying attention. Like the birth certificate fiasco, monogramming and sending out a spoon should be a relatively simple task. But I guess it’s just too much for some people.

Thursday, 28 October 2010

In the unbelievably sad case that you’re not getting enough of my ramblings here at this blog, my latest book review is currently the top story over at Minnesota Atheists, so go there and read it if you feel so inclined.

In other news, I spent some time today looking up the judges that will be on my ballot next week. This is quite research-intensive, because many of the judges don’t have websites, and those that do have sites just tell you how awesome they are and how the government is corrupt and how they promise to fight (or keep fighting) for the common citizen. Yes, yes, very nice, but how have you ruled on certain key issues? That’s what I want to know.

Here’s an article from two years ago regarding Dan Griffith. He’s running again this year. The article seems a tad unfair to me, but the gist basically is that Griffith puts the bible before the constitution.

But for most judges, I can’t find any info. Also, how is a voter supposed to respond when there is only one person on the ballot? Whether I vote for them or not, they’re gonna win. I guess I could write in someone, but I’ll be damned if I’m able to find write-in candidates bios online.

Here’s a great site for finding out who’s gonna be on your ballot. Just put in your address, and it shows your nearest polling place and a sample ballot. I printed mine out and now I’m trying to figure out who to vote for.

Sunday, 24 October 2010

Today we ran all over town – Halloween costumes, groceries, and art supplies all took up our time. The highlight of the day, though, was probably joining the Happy Trails Nature Club on a bog walk at the Harriet Alexander Nature Center.

Here are the ladies in my family out enjoying the fall day:

While the highlight for Isla, evidently, was sleeping through the entire event, the highlight for Owen and me was the Nature Center’s indoor apiary.

The bees all live in this skinny hive that allows viewing on either side. It was fascinating to watch them going about their tasks. Owen, actually was so engrossed that he refused to come on over and listen to the story time. Here’s the apiary itself (with Owen’s head just visible):

The upturned jar to the right, incidentally, is filled with sugar water. “Sugar water” is just a chemist’s fancy terminology for “a solution of water in which sugar has been dissolved.”

You can just barely see it on the left of the picture, but the insects gain access to the great outdoors via a hard plastic tube. There were often four or five bees at a time marching back and forth through the tube to carry on their business. Here’s a close-up of the tube:

It’s probably difficult to see, but there is one bee making his way through the tube in this photo.

You’d think these bees would have life pretty easy, but it turns out they die every winter and need to be replaced with new Borg drones.

Pretty cool.

Monday, 25 October 2010

Today I watched a movie that has to be one of the most difficult movies for me to rate (I keep a list of every movie I’ve ever seen, along with a rating from 0-10). I watched the Van Sant 1998 remake of Psycho.

I try to rate flicks based on when they were released, ergo – I don’t hold it against a film if it’s a silent film, or if it’s special effects aren’t as awesome as more recent films. I also try to ignore outside influences – if a historical picture isn’t entirely historically accurate, I’m okay with that. And if a movie is adapted from a book, I try not to judge the former based on the latter. Indeed, the only time I purposely allow my judgment of a film to be colored by another work is in the case of sequels.

But what about Psycho?

Hmm… a shot-by-shot remake, with identical dialog of my all-time favorite film. Weird.

First off, the dialog is not identical. The writer’s wisely updated a couple of lines. For example, Marion doesn’t steal $40,000 as she does in the original, she steals $400,000 (makes sense). And Detective Arbogast doesn’t reference aspic (what the hell is aspic, anyway?), he references Jell-O, a brand name far more people would recognize.

But overall, this is a film from 1960, even if the opening credits insist it’s 1998. Would Sam really place his engagement on hold just to pay off his debts? In 1960, sure. But in 1998, no, I don’t think so. And would a finance office really keep their back offices air conditioned, but their front offices in sweltering heat? Again, in 1960, sure. But not in 1998. Worst, though, is when Sheriff Chambers’ wife calls the Bates Motel. She picks up the phone and asks that the operator connect her with the motel. Um…sorry, but in 1998, you can just go ahead and call people directly.

But while the film-makers stupidly didn’t update some dialog, they made some changes that were equally stupid. For one thing, Marion Crane is played by Anne Heche. I swear, you could see her thinking in her head “Okay, here’s the part where I need to blink nervously.” It’s like she was just walking through the role, making sure she pantomimed the expressions that were so natural with Janet Leigh.

Also, Heche is a diminutive Pixie of a woman. When she fist interacts with Norman (portrayed by Vince Vaughan), it just doesn’t work. Vaughan looks and acts sinister. He’s a foot taller than Heche and at least twice her weigh. They also appear to be matched in age. In short, he gave off every signal in the world that she should be scared, and that just ruined it. In the original, Leigh and Anthony Perkins are close in height and weight. She seems older, more self-assured, and Perkins’ Norman comes across as an awkward man-boy in his early 20s who doesn’t know how to hurt a fly.

But there’s more bad casting: the psychiatrist’s monologue at the film’s end was made interesting in the original by the way he spoke. It was as if he was at a loss for words, and was trying to think up how to explain Mrs. Bates’ condition as he spoke. But in the remake, the psychiatrist simply parrots the words, quickly and meaninglessly, as if he’s a politician giving a well-rehearsed speech.

And on the subject of bad casting: Julianne Moore plays Marion’s sister Lila. Though obviously in her 30s, she dresses like a teenager, complete with a Walkman and headphones. And it’s not only her rebellious teenager clothing: she also acts like a hormonal bitch. When Sam tries to show her support by putting his hand on her shoulder, she pointlessly shrugs it off. Later, he puts his hand on her shoulder again, this time to complete the illusion that he and Lila are married. But she shrugs him off again! Nice going Lila, now Norman knows you’re lying.

And here’s a weird thing: When Marion is killed in the shower, we are shown quick shots of thunderclouds. Weird…but okay, because it was a stormy night and I can see the connect between the storm outside and the storm inside. But later, when Mrs. Bates kills Arbogast, we also see two quick shots: one of a woman’s silhouette, and one of a cow standing on a road. Again, weird. But this time: stupid.

And speaking of Marion’s murder: the film-makers decided to show her pupils dilating. I appreciated that, because her pupils did not dilate in the original – and that was a mistake. Unfortunately, mere moments after watching her pupils dilate, we see her eyes again and they’re no longer dilated. Sloppy.

Maybe they forgot to keep her eyes dilated because they were too busy setting up an overhead shot of a dead Marion spread-eagled over the tub ledge. She’s face-down, of course, so we just see a very weird angle of her butt crack. Silly…at a time when silliness should not come into play.

But here are the two worst moves (and don’t read on if you’ve never seen the original, or if you’re squeamish):

1) While spying on Marion through the hole in the wall, Norman masturbates – to the point of ejaculation. I’m sorry, but besides detracting from the story, that just ruins the psychology of the next ten minutes. In the original, he simply watches her silently. He is aroused, but he gets no release. His conversation with his mother, and the ensuing stabbing don’t make any sense if Norman is not in a state of agitated arousal.

2) The original film closes with a brilliant triple-exposure of Norman/his mom’s skull/ a chain being pulled out of his heart cross-dissolving into the car being pulled out of the swamp. Then the credits immediately begin – literally chopping away at the scene of the car. It’s as if Hitchcock was saying, “Yeah, remember that money that you cared so much about? Well, here it is…but so what? Movie over!” In the remake, the triple-exposure is still there, but the camera lingers on the car. We are not left with Norman’s demented grin, but with the car being hoisted out of the water. And the shot doesn’t end there: the camera pans up and lets us watch the car being completed extracted and towed away. The scene continues through the entire closing credits, and even for over a minute after the credits end. It’s all useless, and it diminishes the impact.

But I digress. All my nitpicks serve, overall, to just compare the remake with the original. Had there never been an original, I would’ve watched this 1998 flick and found it very admirable. Unfortunately for that film’s creators, though, there was an original.

When asked why he remade a classic in a shot-for-shot manner, director Van Sant said: “So no one else would have to.”

Sorry, Van Sant – that answer is as silly and pointless as your film.

Bottom line:

Psycho (1960): A

Psycho (1998): C