It's really interesting not having extended cable. I get about 25 channels. Of those 25 channels, 1 is a tv guide, 3 are shopping, 2 are public access, 2 are C-Span, 1 is TeleMundo, 1 is some weird christian religious channel. That leaves me with 15 channels of progamming to choose from. Of those fifteen channels, there are 2 of each of the major broadcast channels - one from Madison, one from Rockford; so those 8 are really only 4 channels. That leaves me with ABC, CBS, NBC, WB, UPN, WGN, and PBS. And I can tell you, after about 3 months of this great experiment, that broadcast television is some of the worst progamming in the universe. In fact, we watch only a few things: football, CSI (only CSI: Miami because there is really nothing better on - David Caruso is an idiot and the show is poorly written and directed - but more on that later), Charmed (Erin's "guilty pleasure"), Gilmore Girls (yeah, I said it, you gotta problem with it?), Law and Order (only the original), and PBS. That's what 5 shows?
To be honest, there are few other shows that we'll watch if there is absolutely nothing else on and we just don't feel like reading: Commander-in-Chief (Geena Davis is pretty decent, the husband character is a whiny bitch, the kids aren't really that believable, but Donald Sutherland is one of those evil characters you just love to root for), the new Criminal Minds (that show has gotten considerably better since its first episode; thankfully the cast is excellent which more than makes up for the crappy writing and dialogue and the over-use of special effects), Without A Trace (it's getting a little tiresome though), and Ghost Whisperer (sometimes on a Friday night you just get desperate; it is a ridiculous show, but desperate times call for desperate measures). Oh and Everyone Hates Chris - a good goddamn show. Anyway.
So, of those shows, most are on CBS, football is on Fox, a few from the WB, one is ABC, and one is NBC. And I can tell you that without a doubt we (I) have watched more PBS than any of those shows. Newshour is the best news on tv; bar none. Our local PBS station, during their pledge drive, ran a show about this dude out in the middle of freaking Alaska; utterly captivating to watch this guy make a log cabin with his bare hands and tools that he made himself. Nova's had some good stuff lately. They ran some show about some dude who has way too much money and free time who goes on these weird adventures to the middle of nowhere to hunt for orchids; his goal was to find a brand new orchid species he could name after his grandmother - he succeeded but the species he found was pretty weak. They've also show Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder and last weekend was a new Sherlock Holmes.
That's not to mention Austin City Limits, which is probably the best show featuring music found on TV. Check out their upcoming broadcast schedule for 2006: Ryan Adams in January, then in March starts an ubelievable run of Polyphonic Spree/Ozomatli, Wilco/Bright Eyes, Modest Mouse/Guided By Voices, Flaming Lips/The Shins, Trey Anastasio, Jack Johnson, Allison Krause, Etta Freaking James, Ben Folds, The Killers/Spoon, and Franz Ferdinand. I mean come on. Makes me wish I had TiVo with DVD-R functionality.
Anyway. I can say without a doubt in my mind that PBS has the best programming on TV.
In any event, the whole point of the post (I'll bet you wondering when I'd get to it!) - Last night we watched this show hosted by Alan Alda called Scientific American Frontiers. They ran a program on hydrogen as an alternative fuel. Now, it was my pre-conceived notion about this subject that we, as a society, were far from this being a viable option. The conventional wisdom is that hydrogen is dangerous (not true, or at least no more dangerous than conventional gas), that it is expensive (while probably true in true volume measures, not as an efficiency measure; in other words 2 gal of hydrogen is more expensive than 2 gal of petrol, but it is considerably more efficient, so less is needed to do the same amount of work), and that it was hard to get it moved around to stations (turns out you can manufacture it on site, so there is no need to move it!).
There is this ridiculously talented dude in Michigan who appears to have shit figured out. He's an inventor. He makes materials that do really cool things like soak up hydrogen so it can be used in solid, rather than gas form. He also made solar cells that are light and extra-ordinarily efficient; they can be physically damaged and still work, in fact they work even while it is raining. Anyway, watching this show made me mad. I can hear the chorus now: "Why did it make you mad?" Well, it made me mad, because it seems that this dude has it figured out. And if he can figure it out, why can't anyone else figure it out and, more importantly, why aren't we using his shit!?!?! They didn't go into how much his stuff costs to manufacture. But that seems like quibbling to me. If we know how to make it, and this dude can make it with a relatively meager staff of a few people and some elbow-grease, it would seem that the manufacturing minds over at, hmmm, Ford or Chevy, or Dodge, or Toyota, or Honda, or BP, or Exxon, or Phillips, or Sony, or any of the other companies that have figured out how to reduce manufacturing costs of a cd player to under $20/unit, could all put some thought into how to manufacture these things and distribute them so that we don't have to rely on the oil cartel to feed our cars.
In the over 100 years that automobiles have been in existence, they still rely on essentially the same technology that they used when they were first invented: the internal combustion engine. They still use gasoline. They still are horribly inefficient. They are still spewing hundreds, and thousands, and millions of pounds of carbon dioxide into the air. They make cities like Los Angeles, Tokyo, and Seoul unlivable in the summer months.
It seems to me that it would be a relatively simple process to just start putting hydrogen engines into cars. The biggest problem, and I really don't think it would be that big of a problem, is getting hydrogen to gas stations. Will it take some work? Sure. Will it take some money? Sure. Is it sustainable? yep. Is it better for the environment? Yeah. And we introduce products all the time that can't afforded by the lower class (hell, even the upper-middle class). But eventually those products come down in price. Take the DVD player for example: when they first came out they were thousands of dollars; a little over a year ago I bought one for under $90. My point is, there is a demand and a need for the technology. OK, it's too expensive to manufacture in mass quantities sufficient for someone like me to buy it. I can understand that, but make them and sell them to people who can afford them. I guarantee you that if you put a hydrogen engine in a Hummer, someone will buy the damn thing. You want to know why? Because someone will always buy one.
The bigger problems is hydrogen stations. I'll admit, that's a problem way beyond the scope of this blog; I am not smart enough to figure it out. But there are people who are.
I think is the biggest reason to do it is to reduce reliance on Middle East oil. As a country we don't produce anywhere near the amount the amount of oil we use. The simple fact is that if we wish to keep cheap supplies of oil for our country, we can't rely on the whims and bargaining table with OPEC. We have to have the wells for ourselves. So, we have to do things like invade countries that pose a threat to our oil supply and install governments that are more sympathetic so that we can continue to get the oil. Is it a tragedy? Sure, but wars have been started for less. Even more disturbingly it's an endless cycle. Because once Iraq is stabilized and oil prices start to normalize again, OPEC will get greedy and start restricting output to increase prices. Then we'll have to have invade someone else in order to get more oil. Uzbekistan, US calling Uzbekistan. They're a corrupt country that no one knows anything about - and they produce oil. We can invade them for cheap oil. Bonus points because they are next to Afghanistan and have a history of violence against Muslims, so we can invade them and show that we care about religious tolerance in the region. Anyway, my point is that we always need more oil and we'll always have to get it from someone else. And as long as we need to rely on someone else, the someone else can always bend us over; and we can either bend over and take it, or we can do what we always do - kick their ass.
Perhaps I'm overstating the case for hydrogen. Maybe there's something better. The fact is, someone needs to come up with a solution. The pity is that politics will keep it from ever being implemented. But that's another story for another day.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Monday, December 12, 2005
Kicking (and being laughed at)
ESPN article about Mike Vanderjagt with commentary by Mark Schlereth
Maybe it's because I used to play soccer that I feel a bit sad when kickers are denigrated. I don't get it. Really, I don't. They seem to be everyone's favorite whipping-boy until someone needs one to win a game for them. Sort of like lawyers. Everyone wants to laugh and make jokes until they need one. Then they want the one that's just like the one they joke about.
What I find particularly amusing about Schlereth's commentary is his complete recidivism into the comfortable clothing of the football stereotype. And without any shame. "Mike shouldn't walk around pretending that he plays football. Don't intimate to me that you can get out there and bash heads with an opponent like we can." Doesn't play football? Last I checked he wears a uniform. Puts on pads. Puts on a helmet. Gets a check from the Indianapolis Colts every week. In fact, he probably plays football better than Schlereth ever did. And maybe that's why Mark's mad. Vanderjagt is a good kicker. Possibly a great kicker. His salary is probably twice what Schlereth ever made as a guard. And what does that make the offensive lineman who snaps the ball to the kicker? Go ahead Mark, call your compatriot a pussy, I dare you.
And you know what? He may not be able to go out and "bash heads with an opponent" like Mark can, but neither can Peyton Manning and I don't see Schlereth calling Manning a pussy. In fact, every year kickers lead the league and their teams in scoring. Go ahead and tell the Buffalo Bills that the kicker is useless; they lost a Super Bowl because they didn't have one. It's guys like Mark that go out every week and "bash heads" in the trenches. But when the game's on the line with 3 seconds left and the team down by one, who is the focus of attention? Not Mark Schlereth.
Look at a team like the Bears. They've scored, what? 9 touchdowns all season? They've had games (see the Packers game) where they had 4 field goals and won. The kicker's not a "real" football player, eh? So, that's not a "real win" because it wasn't won by a "real" football player?
Football, perhaps more than any other sport is truly a team sport. Look at a team like the Patriots, few standouts, but everyone contributes, including the backups. Including the kicker. They're all out there trying to add one more to the "W" column. The fact is that Vanderjagt wants to win just as badly as Mark Schlereth, or anyone else on his team. There's no reason the kicker can't be a team leader - hell he probably already is the team leader in points scored.
While we're on the subject of football:
The Bears are 9 and 4. All of their losses have come to AFC North teams. They have lost no games in the NFC this year. Weird. Not sure if Kyle Orton will play on Sunday or not. My guess is that he will, but what do I know? If the Bears are going to kick the Rex Grossman tires this year, Atlanta's as good a time as any to do it. It's indoors, so it won't be cold and miserable. A pristine field on which to take the Rex-mobile out for a ride. Of course it's also fake grass. So Grossman will probably be injured with career-threatening turf toe or something and Orton will be back in by half-time anyway. The Bears finally got some decent play out of their Wide Receivers, but the running game seems to have gone to shit. Either than or Ron Turner has gone to shit. It's too early to tell at this point, but I'm not really sure why when it was 10 degrees and snowing the Bears were throwing like they had Joe Montana and Jerry Rice on the field.
Meanwhile, the Vikings, inexplicably, are at 8-5. How the hell did that happen?
The Browns played Cinci surprisingly close! In fact, CBS out in my neck of the woods switched from the Colts trashing to the Browns/Bengals game in the 4th Quarter. It looks like Charlie Frye is the real deal. With a healthy Braylon Edwards and Kellon Winslow, Jr. next year, and with Ruben Droughns in the backfield, the Browns are just one or two players away from being a wild card team.
Maybe it's because I used to play soccer that I feel a bit sad when kickers are denigrated. I don't get it. Really, I don't. They seem to be everyone's favorite whipping-boy until someone needs one to win a game for them. Sort of like lawyers. Everyone wants to laugh and make jokes until they need one. Then they want the one that's just like the one they joke about.
What I find particularly amusing about Schlereth's commentary is his complete recidivism into the comfortable clothing of the football stereotype. And without any shame. "Mike shouldn't walk around pretending that he plays football. Don't intimate to me that you can get out there and bash heads with an opponent like we can." Doesn't play football? Last I checked he wears a uniform. Puts on pads. Puts on a helmet. Gets a check from the Indianapolis Colts every week. In fact, he probably plays football better than Schlereth ever did. And maybe that's why Mark's mad. Vanderjagt is a good kicker. Possibly a great kicker. His salary is probably twice what Schlereth ever made as a guard. And what does that make the offensive lineman who snaps the ball to the kicker? Go ahead Mark, call your compatriot a pussy, I dare you.
And you know what? He may not be able to go out and "bash heads with an opponent" like Mark can, but neither can Peyton Manning and I don't see Schlereth calling Manning a pussy. In fact, every year kickers lead the league and their teams in scoring. Go ahead and tell the Buffalo Bills that the kicker is useless; they lost a Super Bowl because they didn't have one. It's guys like Mark that go out every week and "bash heads" in the trenches. But when the game's on the line with 3 seconds left and the team down by one, who is the focus of attention? Not Mark Schlereth.
Look at a team like the Bears. They've scored, what? 9 touchdowns all season? They've had games (see the Packers game) where they had 4 field goals and won. The kicker's not a "real" football player, eh? So, that's not a "real win" because it wasn't won by a "real" football player?
Football, perhaps more than any other sport is truly a team sport. Look at a team like the Patriots, few standouts, but everyone contributes, including the backups. Including the kicker. They're all out there trying to add one more to the "W" column. The fact is that Vanderjagt wants to win just as badly as Mark Schlereth, or anyone else on his team. There's no reason the kicker can't be a team leader - hell he probably already is the team leader in points scored.
While we're on the subject of football:
The Bears are 9 and 4. All of their losses have come to AFC North teams. They have lost no games in the NFC this year. Weird. Not sure if Kyle Orton will play on Sunday or not. My guess is that he will, but what do I know? If the Bears are going to kick the Rex Grossman tires this year, Atlanta's as good a time as any to do it. It's indoors, so it won't be cold and miserable. A pristine field on which to take the Rex-mobile out for a ride. Of course it's also fake grass. So Grossman will probably be injured with career-threatening turf toe or something and Orton will be back in by half-time anyway. The Bears finally got some decent play out of their Wide Receivers, but the running game seems to have gone to shit. Either than or Ron Turner has gone to shit. It's too early to tell at this point, but I'm not really sure why when it was 10 degrees and snowing the Bears were throwing like they had Joe Montana and Jerry Rice on the field.
Meanwhile, the Vikings, inexplicably, are at 8-5. How the hell did that happen?
The Browns played Cinci surprisingly close! In fact, CBS out in my neck of the woods switched from the Colts trashing to the Browns/Bengals game in the 4th Quarter. It looks like Charlie Frye is the real deal. With a healthy Braylon Edwards and Kellon Winslow, Jr. next year, and with Ruben Droughns in the backfield, the Browns are just one or two players away from being a wild card team.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Movie Magic
I've seen quite a few (for me anyways) movies lately. Here's a quick run-down:
Walk the Line - Simply good. It was a good way to kill an afternoon. Is it the greatest movie of all time? No. Is it the worst? Not by a long shot. Surprisingly, I though Reese Witherspoon was excellent as June Carter Cash; I'm not generally a Reese Witherspoon fan. Joaquin Phoenix was acceptable as JR Cash. I believed him. No, my problems with the movie, such that they were, were primarily with the formulaicness of the whole thing. I had the feeling while watching the movie that I'd seen this whole thing before. I had. It was called Ray (another movie that I thought was over-hyped). I didn't get the feeling at the end of the movie that I really knew Johnny Cash any better than I did before the movie. Another review I had read suggested that after watching the movie, they wondered why they hadn't made the film about June instead, she seemed much more interesting. I would agree with that. It's not that I don't think Johnny Cash is interesting. He is. But you wouldn't know it from this movie. I guess my beef is this: the movie was about Johnny Cash falling in love with June Carter Cash. A fine premise I suppose. But I wanted to see some insight behind his music and there wasn't very much of that. In fact, I would have loved to have seen much more about June writing "Ring of Fire." But we are just treated to a few snippets of her putting it together. Anyway. I make it sound worse than it is. I liked it. It could have been much, much more interesting.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - I'm obsessed. I've seen every installment on opening weekend (a few of them on opening night - although it now occurs to me that I didn't see it on opening weekend this time around - we were going to go see it right after Walk the Line, but when we went into the theater it was CRAMMED so we waited until the next weekend) and I applaud Erin for humoring me (she hasn't read any of the books). It was a good movie. It was my favorite of the books. The only nit to pick is that I remember the Quiddich World Cup being a much bigger part of the first part of the story and there was surprisingly little time devoted to it. I understand why it was cut - the movie is already 2.5 hours long, and the WC didn't really add much to the story; but it was a really fun part of the story nonetheless.
Kinsey - finally got around to seeing it. In fact, I subscribed to NetFlix ($9.99/mo that I can actually afford since I got rid of cable and internet at home) just so I could finally rent it. Anyway. I liked it. His study was interesting and I thought the director/writers did a good job of showing how such an endeavor will inevitably be corrupted by those who can't/don't desire to keep their hands to themselves or their own spouses. My biggest gripe is that the director couldn't seem to figure out a style that he liked and wanted to stick with. At times it looked like a modern movie (which it is), but at others it adopted a faux-50s-newsreel type feel, and other times it adopted the style and language of a play. The director should have stuck with one, any one of them would have been an interesting way to portray this movie; but to jump around just left me shaking my head.
Hotel Rwanda - sort of like Requium For A Dream - I really liked the movie, but I'm not sure I could sit through it again. I felt beaten down afterwards.
Finding Neverland - after Hotel Rwanda we were like "let's watch something fun and uplifting." Ummm...this movie, not really the direction to go for that. While it was most definitely fun in parts, the end of the movie is a bit of a downer. Johnny Depp was fantastic (as usual) but I was left wondering how, after a brief glimpse of JM Barrie's childhood and the ongoing story of his marriage, how exactly he managed to maintain this child-like outlook on life. Of course, there's nothing like precocious, intelligent, essentially good eight-year-olds to bring out the child in even the hardest of hearts; but I'm not sure that's really the answer here because the effect almost seemed the opposite - that Barrie brought out the child in them rather than vice versa. Anyway, again I really liked it.
So, the next few movies on the list are: Motorcycle Diaries, Love Actually, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Good Girl, The Fearless Freaks, Some Like It Hot, Lolita (Kubrik's version), and Frida.
CDs of interest lately:
Camper Van Beethoven: Camper Van Beethoven, New Roman Times
Spoon: Gimme Fiction
Modest Moust - New Lonesome Crowded West
Sigur Ros - ( ), Takk
Walk the Line - Simply good. It was a good way to kill an afternoon. Is it the greatest movie of all time? No. Is it the worst? Not by a long shot. Surprisingly, I though Reese Witherspoon was excellent as June Carter Cash; I'm not generally a Reese Witherspoon fan. Joaquin Phoenix was acceptable as JR Cash. I believed him. No, my problems with the movie, such that they were, were primarily with the formulaicness of the whole thing. I had the feeling while watching the movie that I'd seen this whole thing before. I had. It was called Ray (another movie that I thought was over-hyped). I didn't get the feeling at the end of the movie that I really knew Johnny Cash any better than I did before the movie. Another review I had read suggested that after watching the movie, they wondered why they hadn't made the film about June instead, she seemed much more interesting. I would agree with that. It's not that I don't think Johnny Cash is interesting. He is. But you wouldn't know it from this movie. I guess my beef is this: the movie was about Johnny Cash falling in love with June Carter Cash. A fine premise I suppose. But I wanted to see some insight behind his music and there wasn't very much of that. In fact, I would have loved to have seen much more about June writing "Ring of Fire." But we are just treated to a few snippets of her putting it together. Anyway. I make it sound worse than it is. I liked it. It could have been much, much more interesting.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - I'm obsessed. I've seen every installment on opening weekend (a few of them on opening night - although it now occurs to me that I didn't see it on opening weekend this time around - we were going to go see it right after Walk the Line, but when we went into the theater it was CRAMMED so we waited until the next weekend) and I applaud Erin for humoring me (she hasn't read any of the books). It was a good movie. It was my favorite of the books. The only nit to pick is that I remember the Quiddich World Cup being a much bigger part of the first part of the story and there was surprisingly little time devoted to it. I understand why it was cut - the movie is already 2.5 hours long, and the WC didn't really add much to the story; but it was a really fun part of the story nonetheless.
Kinsey - finally got around to seeing it. In fact, I subscribed to NetFlix ($9.99/mo that I can actually afford since I got rid of cable and internet at home) just so I could finally rent it. Anyway. I liked it. His study was interesting and I thought the director/writers did a good job of showing how such an endeavor will inevitably be corrupted by those who can't/don't desire to keep their hands to themselves or their own spouses. My biggest gripe is that the director couldn't seem to figure out a style that he liked and wanted to stick with. At times it looked like a modern movie (which it is), but at others it adopted a faux-50s-newsreel type feel, and other times it adopted the style and language of a play. The director should have stuck with one, any one of them would have been an interesting way to portray this movie; but to jump around just left me shaking my head.
Hotel Rwanda - sort of like Requium For A Dream - I really liked the movie, but I'm not sure I could sit through it again. I felt beaten down afterwards.
Finding Neverland - after Hotel Rwanda we were like "let's watch something fun and uplifting." Ummm...this movie, not really the direction to go for that. While it was most definitely fun in parts, the end of the movie is a bit of a downer. Johnny Depp was fantastic (as usual) but I was left wondering how, after a brief glimpse of JM Barrie's childhood and the ongoing story of his marriage, how exactly he managed to maintain this child-like outlook on life. Of course, there's nothing like precocious, intelligent, essentially good eight-year-olds to bring out the child in even the hardest of hearts; but I'm not sure that's really the answer here because the effect almost seemed the opposite - that Barrie brought out the child in them rather than vice versa. Anyway, again I really liked it.
So, the next few movies on the list are: Motorcycle Diaries, Love Actually, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Good Girl, The Fearless Freaks, Some Like It Hot, Lolita (Kubrik's version), and Frida.
CDs of interest lately:
Camper Van Beethoven: Camper Van Beethoven, New Roman Times
Spoon: Gimme Fiction
Modest Moust - New Lonesome Crowded West
Sigur Ros - ( ), Takk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)