My insane love for Disney World is not matched by many of my peers. That's not bragging, I spend most of my life shy about it and don't really like to talk about it with people that I can't really, really trust.
That being said, I know that everyone who has been to Epcot has enjoyed the "jumping water" outside of the Imagination Pavilion. This video really captures why people enjoy it, and it's flat out entertaining.
Enjoy!
Thursday, January 27, 2011
...Pop culture concerns...
I am not going to write a dissertation on all the things in Pop Culture that irk me, because that's not a valuable use of anyone's time, especially my own. However, there are 3 or 4 things going on out there that confound me, and I'd like clarity, although the reason they confound me is that there is no clarity that can come from analysis - trust me, I've analyzed, and there's no clarity. But here are the irk-while events going on.
Birthers: (EDIT, 1:23 PM - Upon comments from Micah & Keely, primarily, I immediately regret writing this. Not in a 'woe is me' kind of way, but more of a 'this is what happens when you do anything without thinking first.' kind of way. I am leaving it up as another reminder that I am a flawed, flawed person. Enjoy!)
I don't have a liberal friend that won't cringe at this section of my post...but I'm really starting to think there is validity to the question here. I don't know, call me crazy, call me a fascist, call me whatever you want, but for those of you who know me, I think you know that I don't think of this whole "where was he born?" thing as a witch hunt. I don't want blood, I just sorta want to know if the process was subverted, and if chaos will ensue.
Let's pretend for a minute Barack Obama was not born in the US. Honestly, the only proof we are working off of here is his word, and the word of his friends. You can choose to believe that. The last Pop Culture Icon President we had was Clinton. He lied about his sex life in every creative way possible. He lied under oath. He lied in the Oval office. He lied, lied, lied. At the time, I remember defending him saying that the question should have never been asked under oath, but I was naive. Of course it should have. This is different though, it's more serious.
Doing the business in the Oval Office is one thing - that act doesn't mean that your Presidency is illegitimate, it means your behavior is awful, and it means your morals are out of whack, but it doesn't mean you had no right to govern in the first place.
Back to pretend land where Obama in fact was born elsewhere...that, under the Constitution of the US, Obama's presidency is illegitimate. As are his Supreme Court appointees, and all the legislation that was signed into law.
I guess what I'm getting at is, in the 2012 Election, the GOP will not let this, "aw, trust us" gig slide. Like it or not, fair or unfair, he will have to prove his place of birth. This reminds me SO MUCH of the movie, The Contender, one of my favorite political dramas ever, consisting of a role that I think may have been Jeff Bridges finest (yes, better than The Dude). In that movie, VP Nominee Laine Hanson had a choice - talk about her romantic past - discuss rumors and innuendo in an open forum, OR not do that. She chose not to, and she won out in the end, because the rumors were unfounded and she didn't want to dignify them with a response.
Will Obama take the same tact? The difference is, he is an elected official and I don't think the public will stand for it. Her fate was a positive one, but she was appointed, not elected, that's the rub.
The liberal argument has been, "Birthers are awful people, who are perpetuating McCarthy-ism and Obama has nothing to prove. This wouldn't be asked of him if his name was Barry O'Bonner, an Irish-Christian self made Republican from Templeton, MA". And they are probably right. Unfortunately, that isn't how politics works, and my personal opinion is Obama is in deep trouble unless he produces paperwork.
This is when we'll know it's all over, and it's coming soon, if it hasn't happened already. When the liberal argument shifts from what I wrote above, to "well, it doesn't matter anyway, he is inspirational, and the rule is DUMB!"
Get ready for it.
Glee v. Skins:
I have a mixed audience here, so I'll keep it PG-13, or at the most, NC-17. Wait, which is worse, NC-17 or R? I think R. I really don't know though. As you may have seen, MTV's Skins is in a boatload of trouble. Everyone is up in arms and upset about the possibility of flat out child-pornography, which we all know is MTV's hope - to get to a place where they are flat out accused and sued of it. They are the Larry Flynt of TV, and they want to be, and so does America. America wanted them to show child porn. I am not kidding.
Anyway, they are in trouble because the children on that show are depicted in realistic ways performing acts deemed as sexual by the FCC, and anybody with common sense. Okay, got it, I agree, that shouldn't be on TV, there's no place for it for public consumption, and it's not right.
But what confuses me is that everyone is okay with Glee, a show that is a permanent cash cow, a show that is generating numbers through the roof, that depicts people who are acting as children, performing and singing about acts that are gratuitously sexual. Yes, the difference is those actors are above 18, but they are playing children, sophomores in High School in some cases, and they are talking about things that I know Sophomores talk about - but is it Glee's job to depict it?
You can have the argument that we are too rigid as a society, that there shouldn't be these laws in the first place, but there are the laws, and they do exist, and I can't figure out why Skins loses advertisers, while Glee has advertisers and talent begging to be a part of it.
The Recovery of Rep. Giffords:
Nothing that has happened so far in the recovery of Rep. Giffords has alarmed me too much. There is not a person of sound mind that is doing anything but pulling for her physical and mental recovery from what obviously was a tragedy - a horrific act of a lone insane person. Politics aside, this story is covered in sadness, and Loughner did basically everything he could to sound every alarm within earshot of basically everyone he knew that this was going to result in danger, if not death.
The act and the motivations of the act aside, I want this woman to recover in peace. I am not sure why her Husband wanted to be on TV to talk about her story - his interview on Nightline or Dateline or whatever it was was very respectful, well done, and he is obviously a compassionate and warm man. I respect him and their story a lot.
Maybe it's for symbolism - you can't be a Politician or an Astronaut without understanding and overvaluing symbolism - but that image of them with the sun setting or rising or whatever, with him staring into her face while she lays on a hospital bed in Arizona, it just felt wrong, and I can't say why.
I want her to recover in peace - if she wants to rise to a political post again, I wish her all the best, I want her to do anything she wants, I just cringe a bit at the coverage of this recovery - because the bottom line is that the news cycle can't do anything with tact, and certainly doesn't have her best interest in mind, and I hope it all plays out in the most level-headed way possible.
Birthers: (EDIT, 1:23 PM - Upon comments from Micah & Keely, primarily, I immediately regret writing this. Not in a 'woe is me' kind of way, but more of a 'this is what happens when you do anything without thinking first.' kind of way. I am leaving it up as another reminder that I am a flawed, flawed person. Enjoy!)
I don't have a liberal friend that won't cringe at this section of my post...but I'm really starting to think there is validity to the question here. I don't know, call me crazy, call me a fascist, call me whatever you want, but for those of you who know me, I think you know that I don't think of this whole "where was he born?" thing as a witch hunt. I don't want blood, I just sorta want to know if the process was subverted, and if chaos will ensue.
Let's pretend for a minute Barack Obama was not born in the US. Honestly, the only proof we are working off of here is his word, and the word of his friends. You can choose to believe that. The last Pop Culture Icon President we had was Clinton. He lied about his sex life in every creative way possible. He lied under oath. He lied in the Oval office. He lied, lied, lied. At the time, I remember defending him saying that the question should have never been asked under oath, but I was naive. Of course it should have. This is different though, it's more serious.
Doing the business in the Oval Office is one thing - that act doesn't mean that your Presidency is illegitimate, it means your behavior is awful, and it means your morals are out of whack, but it doesn't mean you had no right to govern in the first place.
Back to pretend land where Obama in fact was born elsewhere...that, under the Constitution of the US, Obama's presidency is illegitimate. As are his Supreme Court appointees, and all the legislation that was signed into law.
I guess what I'm getting at is, in the 2012 Election, the GOP will not let this, "aw, trust us" gig slide. Like it or not, fair or unfair, he will have to prove his place of birth. This reminds me SO MUCH of the movie, The Contender, one of my favorite political dramas ever, consisting of a role that I think may have been Jeff Bridges finest (yes, better than The Dude). In that movie, VP Nominee Laine Hanson had a choice - talk about her romantic past - discuss rumors and innuendo in an open forum, OR not do that. She chose not to, and she won out in the end, because the rumors were unfounded and she didn't want to dignify them with a response.
Will Obama take the same tact? The difference is, he is an elected official and I don't think the public will stand for it. Her fate was a positive one, but she was appointed, not elected, that's the rub.
The liberal argument has been, "Birthers are awful people, who are perpetuating McCarthy-ism and Obama has nothing to prove. This wouldn't be asked of him if his name was Barry O'Bonner, an Irish-Christian self made Republican from Templeton, MA". And they are probably right. Unfortunately, that isn't how politics works, and my personal opinion is Obama is in deep trouble unless he produces paperwork.
This is when we'll know it's all over, and it's coming soon, if it hasn't happened already. When the liberal argument shifts from what I wrote above, to "well, it doesn't matter anyway, he is inspirational, and the rule is DUMB!"
Get ready for it.
Glee v. Skins:
I have a mixed audience here, so I'll keep it PG-13, or at the most, NC-17. Wait, which is worse, NC-17 or R? I think R. I really don't know though. As you may have seen, MTV's Skins is in a boatload of trouble. Everyone is up in arms and upset about the possibility of flat out child-pornography, which we all know is MTV's hope - to get to a place where they are flat out accused and sued of it. They are the Larry Flynt of TV, and they want to be, and so does America. America wanted them to show child porn. I am not kidding.
Anyway, they are in trouble because the children on that show are depicted in realistic ways performing acts deemed as sexual by the FCC, and anybody with common sense. Okay, got it, I agree, that shouldn't be on TV, there's no place for it for public consumption, and it's not right.
But what confuses me is that everyone is okay with Glee, a show that is a permanent cash cow, a show that is generating numbers through the roof, that depicts people who are acting as children, performing and singing about acts that are gratuitously sexual. Yes, the difference is those actors are above 18, but they are playing children, sophomores in High School in some cases, and they are talking about things that I know Sophomores talk about - but is it Glee's job to depict it?
You can have the argument that we are too rigid as a society, that there shouldn't be these laws in the first place, but there are the laws, and they do exist, and I can't figure out why Skins loses advertisers, while Glee has advertisers and talent begging to be a part of it.
The Recovery of Rep. Giffords:
Nothing that has happened so far in the recovery of Rep. Giffords has alarmed me too much. There is not a person of sound mind that is doing anything but pulling for her physical and mental recovery from what obviously was a tragedy - a horrific act of a lone insane person. Politics aside, this story is covered in sadness, and Loughner did basically everything he could to sound every alarm within earshot of basically everyone he knew that this was going to result in danger, if not death.
The act and the motivations of the act aside, I want this woman to recover in peace. I am not sure why her Husband wanted to be on TV to talk about her story - his interview on Nightline or Dateline or whatever it was was very respectful, well done, and he is obviously a compassionate and warm man. I respect him and their story a lot.
Maybe it's for symbolism - you can't be a Politician or an Astronaut without understanding and overvaluing symbolism - but that image of them with the sun setting or rising or whatever, with him staring into her face while she lays on a hospital bed in Arizona, it just felt wrong, and I can't say why.
I want her to recover in peace - if she wants to rise to a political post again, I wish her all the best, I want her to do anything she wants, I just cringe a bit at the coverage of this recovery - because the bottom line is that the news cycle can't do anything with tact, and certainly doesn't have her best interest in mind, and I hope it all plays out in the most level-headed way possible.
Monday, January 17, 2011
...A Brutal Reality...
2004 Patriots, 14-2 and win the Super Bowl
2005 Patriots, 10-6 and lose to the Broncos in Div. Playoff Rounds
2006 Patriots, 12-4 and lose to the Colts in the Conf. Championship
2007 Patriots, 16-0 and lose to the Giants in whatever
2008 Patriots, 11-5 and Brady gets hurt - miss the playoffs
2009 Patriots, 10-6 and get blown out by the Ravens, at home.
2010 Patriots, 14-2 and get beat bad in the Div. Playoff Round
The Steelers have won 2 Super Bowls in that time, and are working towards a 3rd.
I know Brady had a run that was unbelievable, and he is a great QB, but a Steelers win, with Ben coming off of the offseason he had, really may be vastly more impressive than Brady's run.
How many years can a team fall short and the Coach & QB are still called the greatest?
2005 Patriots, 10-6 and lose to the Broncos in Div. Playoff Rounds
2006 Patriots, 12-4 and lose to the Colts in the Conf. Championship
2007 Patriots, 16-0 and lose to the Giants in whatever
2008 Patriots, 11-5 and Brady gets hurt - miss the playoffs
2009 Patriots, 10-6 and get blown out by the Ravens, at home.
2010 Patriots, 14-2 and get beat bad in the Div. Playoff Round
The Steelers have won 2 Super Bowls in that time, and are working towards a 3rd.
I know Brady had a run that was unbelievable, and he is a great QB, but a Steelers win, with Ben coming off of the offseason he had, really may be vastly more impressive than Brady's run.
How many years can a team fall short and the Coach & QB are still called the greatest?
Friday, January 14, 2011
...Top 3 Guys In Sports I Wish Would Disappear...
I think if you want a Rex Ryan metaphor, here is a quick clip that explains how I feel about Rex Ryan. In this video, Jack Skellington is Bradykid, Oogie Boogie is Rex Ryan, and Santa's foot at the end is Danny Woodhead.
It's the unravelling that I really like. This list isn't a list of guys I only dislike - it's a list of guys that I dislike, but also I feel they detract, rather than add, to the glory and glamour of sports. Rex is a buffoon, but my argument would be that as a villain, he added more to this NFL season than he took away. These guys below are all about subtraction.
Here are the 3 guys in Sports I'd really like to just see disappear.
Here are the 3 guys in Sports I'd really like to just see disappear.
Craig Sager - It isn't his wardrobe choices that put him on this list, it's just about everything about him. I get frustrated when Bjork shows up at the Oscars wearing a dead swan and people say that she is the "worst dressed" - because she is obviously trying to dress like a maniac. That's what Sager is doing here, except he is forgetting he isn't part of the show at all. At least Bjork made "Dancer in the Dark," and was incredible. Sager offers nothing. Literally nobody would notice if he was gone, and he is pretty much on par with all sideline reporters, in all sports. The only difference is Sager draws unnecessary attention to himself with his clothes, and TNT encourages it.
 |
I may come off as someone who likes Jay Cutler, and to be honest I don't really have an opinion. I often think at times he looks disinterested and I don't think he is a Super Bowl winning QB - his body language is confusing, but I am not on his team, and they did go 12-4, and I have some friends who are athletes who are maniacs (Hot Kyle, anyone?) but I'd put him on any team of mine for the rest of my life, he's my guy, and I am sure Jay is someone's guy.
But Rick Reilly is also a metaphor for all the sports journalism out there - folks who have nothing better to write about except sports where people literally die (Steam Room Competitions) and pictures on their books of people putting things in their pants. Rick isn't interested sports, Rick is interested in Dolla Dolla Billz. Loving money in itself doesn't bother me, but doing under the guise of my beloved Sports Journalism world is offensive to me
Do you have a list?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)