Zeitgeist

Since we recently discussed documentaries I figured I would talk a bit about one I watched recently. Zeitgeist is a movie that you can view online at this site http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ . The film is a documentary highlighting conspiracy theories that deal with religions, September 11th, the World Bank, and a couple others. I know that religion and 9/11 are very sensitive subjects, but I am very open to exploring new possibilities than just what I have been told or shown. When watching it the content that is portrayed definitely makes you think. That is what I believe the point of documentaries is, is to make you think. Most documentaries portray the side of the story that they believe in. Even when they do show some aspects of the other side, they often twist the view to make it seem like that side is wrong. But I don't believe documentaries are just trying to make you believe everything they are telling you, but to think about things a bit more. The purpose of documentaries is to make you ask questions and not just take what you are given as the complete truth. Truth isn't easy to come by in this day and age, especially when it comes to dealings with the government and religion. Both of them tend to say what they believe to be true and expect you to accept it as fact without looking into it. Asking questions is one of the greatest tools we have been given. It is a never ending tool to continually attempt to gain knowledge.

If you have 2 hours and nothing to do, I would recommend checking out Zeitgeist. It may not be your cup of tea, but I do feel like it will make you think and ask some questions.

Playstation 3

Before I start, let me say that I am definitely a gamer. I have grown up with a video game system in my house since I was born, thanks to my older brother. I have had the original Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Playstation, Playstation 2, and for the past few years my Playstation 3. I have to say that I am completely shocked that the sales of the PS3 are the lowest of the three major gaming systems, (Nintendo Wii and XBOX 360). It is obvious that the PS3 is the most expensive. When it first came out it was around 500-600$, but now it is in the 300-400$ range. Some people will say well that is still pretty pricey, but you have to look at everything it does. First of all it is a high definition gaming system. The games made for it have some of the most amazing graphics I have ever seen from a video game system, and the graphics just get better as the developers find out more things the system is capable of. Game developers probably will not know the full capabilities of the system until after they make Playstation 4. Not only is it a great game system, but it comes equipped with a Blu Ray player. Blu ray DVDs are the next generation of DVDs. They are high definition with absolute crystal clear picture. For example I have The Dark Knight on blu ray, and there is a scene where the Joker's men blow out a window. When the window blows up you can literally see every piece of glass, it's unbelievable. Blu ray DVDs are taking off right now and becoming more and more popular. It is getting to the point where if you own a high definition television, you have to buy a blu ray so you can watch all your movies in high definition as well as your television shows. Another great aspect of the PS3 is that it has an internet browser built in. Oh and the internet access is free as long as you have an internet connection in your house. Also don't worry if it is a wireless connection because the PS3 has built in WiFi that can scan for an internet signal. This really is the perfect system and the commercials are right, "it only does everything."

Tiger Woods Comes Back

As I'm sure many of you have all heard that the PGA is putting on their annual Masters tournament this weekend. Also you have probably heard that Tiger Woods will be making his return to professional golf in this tournament. Of course with him coming back the media will be all over it, like they have been for months. The media loves scandals and this was a huge one. Tiger Woods had this good guy, clean, family man image that was tainted when he was involved in a sex scandal for the ages. It came out to many media outlets that he has had sex with numerous other women who are not his wife. Not to mention a good amount of these women were pornstars.

Now I understand that media is attracted to controversy like a fly to shit, but honestly when is enough, enough? What Tiger did was very wrong. I do not condone cheating on a spouse in any way. He has done a serious wrong here. He has been taking the steps to make things right. He recognized he had a huge problem and went to therapy. He is trying to make things right with his marriage, but that is an uphill battle to say the least. Everyone likes to talk about how insincere his apologies have been. They want him to show over the top emotions, but that just isn't Tiger Woods. The only time he ever shows emotion is on a golf course, and that is usually limited to a fist pump after a big putt. He is not a guy who will show emotion, if anything he is more like a robot who was only programmed to play golf.

People complain about what he did, and the media loves to talk about him every chance they get, but the fact is Tiger Woods puts fans in the stands at any golf tournament he shows up at. Why do you think he wasn't suspended from the PGA when this all came out? He took time away from golf on his own. He was not necessarily told to, he might have been by publicists because it was the best idea to step away for a while. Now that he is back, whether you love him or hate him, there will be millions watching him. They will tune in to see the reaction he gets when he finally steps up to that first tee. Golf needs him which is why they would never get rid of him. The media is all over for his indiscretions, but they are still focussed on him.

The media needs to back off. The man made a huge mistake, multiple times. Let him do what he has to do behind closed doors to fix his personal life. This constant coverage is not helping either side get through this.

Memento

I had to watch the film Memento for my COMM 225 class, and I enjoyed every minute of it. The film was different than anything I had seen before. It was about a man who was trying to figure out who killed his wife, but the only problem was he had a condition where he had no short term memory. When his wife was killed the killer hit him over the head causing him to only remember things prior to the incident. He could only remember things for about 10 minutes at a time and then he would completely forget what he was doing, who he was talking to, or what he was talking about. What made this film so unique was the way it was portrayed on screen. You start off with him looking over the body of a man he just shot, then it goes backwards from there. The scenes unfold from what he remembers from the pictures and clues he has. You, as the audience, only get to see what is happening as the main character remembers it. This allowed a direct connection between audience and main character, sucking you in right from the start. It also had the element of you never know what would happen next, meaning you had to watch every single minute of the film because it had elements that were key to the plot, which only occurred in a split second.

This unique film style is one that could be duplicated, but it is only affective if executed correctly. In this film's case, it was. I couldn't bring myself to look away from the screen, which allowed me to pick up on an important shot that literally only lasted a half second. That half second shot was the most important part of the film, in my opinion, and if I were looking away I would have missed it and been confused. I recommend this film if you ever get the chance to check it out, I don't think you will be disappointed.

Double Take

I watched Shutter Island for the second time last night, and while I was watching it I was able to pick up on little hints that the director throws into the film to help you in figuring out what is going on. Now, it was probably because I saw the film before and knew what happened that I was able to pick up on them ,but I was thinking about it and if you really watch a film and break it down while you are watching it, it was definitely possible to figure out what was going on before you got to the end. It all made me think, and this may just be me, but do we really actively watch films, or do we passively watch them for entertainment? When my roommate saw the film for the first time he said he was disappointed because it did not entertain him. Then, after he watched it a couple other times he appreciated the film. There are definitely separate types of films, such as ones that make you really think like Shutter Island, but others are just for entertainment like Anchorman. I don't think you can truly appreciate an in depth film such as Shutter Island without watching it multiple times. I know after I watched it the second time, I had a different view of how it ended. Watching films multiple times allows you to pick up on all the subtle camera shots and lines that are said throughout, which all help you figure out what the film is really all about.

Life

I don't know how many of you have seen this series of episodes on the Discovery Channel, but this program is similar to the "Planet Earth" series. Each episode focuses on a different groups of animals in the world. It is filled with amazing camera angles that obviously took a lot of time and hard work to obtain, as well as in depth information on each animal. It is one of the most amazing programs I have ever watched, and when it is on everyone I am with sits in silence while our eyes stay locked on the screen. It is interesting to see animals interact with one another and see how their instincts come into play, as well as their communication with other animals. Just last night they showed how a hyena tried to pick a fight with a few lions. Obviously the lions roughed the hyena up but it lived. The hyena then sent out a call that was heard by an entire clan of hyenas. The clan then joined together to attack the three lions. They used teamwork that you don't even see in professional sports to outsmart the lions and send them running scared. It is truly incredible to see how animals, who some humans think to be primitive and inferior to us, can work together and communicate as good as or better than us.

If you ever get the chance I recommend you take the time on Sunday nights from 8 pm -10pm to catch the rest of this series. You will watch in awe at just how incredible nature can be.

Chile Pepper Weapons?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_india_chili_grenades

The article above is really something interesting to read. Apparently the military is starting to use a chile pepper as a non-toxic, tear gas like, weapon in order to make terrorists leave hideouts. According to the article, the "Bhut Jolokia" measures up to 1,000,000 Scoville units. This unit of measurement is used to measure how spicy a pepper is. To put it on a scale, the article mentions the jalapeno pepper only measures between 2,500-8,000. So this is a spicy pepper to say the least. The idea is weaponizing the pepper causes people to choke up, making being in the presence of it unbearable.

I love the idea of this being used as a weapon. First off how expensive could making a weapon out of peppers be? Secondly, I'm not a big fan of war to begin with, so the use of non-toxic weapons is a little more settling then merciless killing. It could prove very effective to smoke out terrorists into the open to take them as prisoners, or to clear out a hideout in order for the military to enter it in search of someone. I definitely like the idea of research for more natural ways to thwart terrorism, and think more should be done to find even more ways.

Changing Speedy Gonzales?!?!

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/george-lopez-voice-speedy-gonzales-film-reuters

In the article I have above, it talks about a new film coming out where they have George Lopez do the voice of the famous character Speedy Gonzales. What it also says is that it is shying away from the Speedy that was debuted in the 1950's, because that Speedy was "racist." Are you kidding me? Speedy Gonzales is a cartoon character. How can a cartoon character, one who is not a real human being or animal who would have any thoughts of their own, be racist? This is absolutely ridiculous. I can see how he feeds stereotypes of Mexican culture, but he is nothing more than a tool for entertainment. He is first and foremost, a cartoon character on a cartoon that is aimed at little kids. Speedy is also from Mexico. What accent would you want someone from Mexico to have? Would you prefer that he speak in perfect English with no accent what so ever? No!! The accent is what makes him funny. He is a little Mexican mouse who runs around. I can't stand how people look so far into cartoons thinking they are going to corrupt our youth. I grew up watching Looney Tunes, and I am not racist in any way. I know plenty of other people who watch the same show and also are not racist. I don't like how these film makers can just come in and change one of the most famous cartoon characters of all time.

Lil Wayne in jail

One of the biggest rappers of this generation was sentenced to a year in jail for possession of weapons. Lil Wayne's tour bus was raided in New York, when police smelled marijuana coming from the bus. They then found guns that were owned by Lil Wayne.

I read an article about this incident in Rolling Stone Magazine. The magazine stated that Lil Wayne will obviously have better living arrangements in the prison than other prisoners. Which is understandable looking at how much money he has, and how famous he is. People will argue that it isn't fair that he will be treated better, but in today's society, that's what money can do. Another thing this instance brings to question is the idea of rappers carrying guns. I know this may be extremely controversial but, I believe they should be allowed to carry weapons for protection. I think it should stay at pistols only, and not allow automatic weapons or shotguns. Looking at the culture, it is dangerous. Look at what happened to Tupac and Notorious B.I.G. They were shot in gang related violence. The fact is a lot of these rappers come from hard lives, where they associated with bad people, or had enemies because they associated with one group over another.

Looking back at Lil Wayne's life, I don't believe he would use the gun for anything more than protection. He almost lost his life as a child by accidently shooting himself in the chest. He knows how fragile life is. Looking at all of this, I don't think the year sentence is appropriate, and I do believe these high profile celebrities do deserve a good amount of protection. Bodyguards can only do so much, and sure they can take a bullet, but there isn't the certainty that all the bullets will miss the target.

Olympic Luger

By now I am sure everyone has heard of the tragedy that happened at the Olympics. A luger died, while doing a practice run of the course, when he lost control of his sled and was thrown from it at a high speed into poles. The reason I know so much as to what happened, is because you can find this video of his death on the internet, and it was shown on television. It makes me wonder why this clip is being made public. It was known before the clip was aired that this luger did in fact die, so it's not like he was in the hospital with a chance to live and this video was being shown just to show what happened, no this video was a video of his death.

I thought the media would not show something like this, whether they were allowed to or not. You have to think about the victim and the victim's family and friends. Do you think they would want to see the horrific video of their relative's death? I know I sure as hell wouldn't. The incident reminds me of when Owen Hart, of World Wrestling Entertainment, died at a live pay per view event, when a bungee stunt went wrong. The chord broke and Owen fell from the rafters, breaking his neck on impact. He was worked on by medical staff but was pronounced dead later in the broadcast. The thing about that incident though is it has never been shown on television or online. They did the right thing by keeping it away from the public eye. I just feel like it is ultimately an invasion of privacy. I know these atheletes and stars know what they are getting themselves into, and know cameras will be on them a majority of the time, but to show a man's death is just flat out wrong.

Super Bowl Ads

Everyone knows that the Super Bowl is the most watched event every year. People who don't even like football will watch for the halftime show, and of course the famous "Super Bowl Ads." Every year the Super Bowl is known for having the best and funniest ads of any show on television. These ad slots are also the most expensive. According to msnbc.com, the price for a 30 second ad during this year's Super Bowl was "2.6 million dollars." That is a lot of money for a 30 second ad. With all the money spent on these ads, for the little amount of time they have, companies go all out to make a big splash and draw in customers. I think it is safe to say that "Doritos" hit it big with three very funny commercials.

It isn't always about having a long commercial or the funniest. Last year Miller High Life had a one second ad where they just had their spokesman scream "HIGH LIFE" and that was it. All it took was one second, but everyone I knew that watched the game was talking about that commercial. All these companies who spend millions and millions for 30 second ads that some people don't even remember, got out done by one simple second. When it comes to advertising it really is all about the presentation. If you have a memorable presentation, people will seem to recognize the product and most likely purchase it.

Jon Stewart on O'Reilly

So this week Jon Stewart was on the O'Reilly Factor and it was definitely an entertaining experience. Bill was asking questions to Stewart about how he thinks Obama has been doing. Stewart stunned him with answers on multiple occassions and O'Reilly said "You continue to suprise me." To me it showed such a strong sense of arrogance. For anyone who has watched Jon Stewart, you know that yes he is hosting a show meant to me comedic, but he is educated on what he is talking about. For O'Reilly to be "suprised" by Jon's answers he obviously had to be thinking "this guy doesn't know what he is talking about." Of course O'Reilly did his famous move of interrupting and talking over Jon when he was trying to make a point. In some instances Stewart would just stop talking and almost laugh it off.

O'Reilly asked him questions about what he thought about Fox News, because in a previous episode of "The Daily Show" Stewart trashed it in a sense saying it was strictly Republican. O'Reilly came back with it is a fair and balanced news station, actually the most fair and balanced. Stewart's return argument was that Fox has a good amount of opinion oriented shows, but it does not portray that to the viewer. It mostly portrays it as "fair and balanced" as well as "truthful." Stewart said O'Reilly is probably the most reputable member of the Fox News team, but he said "that is like saying you are the thinnest kid at fat camp." I definitely agree with what Stewart is saying in this interview. Fox seems to hide the line between truth and opinion and does not distinguish which is which to its viewers. How can they say it is "fair and balanced" when during the entire election of 2004 they had people saying "only 200 days til Bush is re-elected." Are you kidding me? How is that not being one sided? It still shocks me how O'Reilly can see himself as a fair and partial reporter when all he does is talk over his guests and tear down the democratic party? Fox News continues to make me laugh....in pity.

Any values in media

I was watching the film "Manhattan" for one of my classes and there is one part where Woody Allen's character, who works for a television studio, decides to quit because he is outraged by what the station is putting on television. He saw it as trash and that it didn't fit into his values. The movie was made in 1979 but I feel like it still applies today. Shows that are on today really don't seem to have any moral compass at all. I will admit I do watch shows like "The Real World", and "Jersey Shore," and I do find great entertainment in watching these peoples lives. I think it is just because in the time I have grown up in, it is just what I am accustomed to. We all like to laugh, but is what we are laughing about actually funny or just pathetic. The people on "Jersey Shore," went from nobodies to making 10 thousand dollars just to show up at clubs. What is worse is we made these people famous. By watching them and getting a cheap laugh at ignorance and stupidity, they now can just coast by while others have to struggle to make ends meet. I know I added to this fame by watching and actually enjoying it, but I just started asking why is it that I find this entertaining?

Maybe I'm doing the wrong thing and I should just try to get on television and make it big by doing nothing. Some could say they are living the "American Dream" but what does that even mean anymore? Coast by until you somehow catch a big break? Wasn't the dream to come here, make an honest living and support a family? This society has strayed away from any and all values, and you have to wonder if and when it will ever get back on track.

Lady Gaga

The Grammy's were on tonight and of course Lady Gaga wore something outrageous again. For anyone who watches TV this isn't anything new from her. When she has been asked about she just says that is who she is and how she really dresses. Her style is definitely unique, but look what it's doing. Everytime she shows up at an awards show she turns heads. She gets asked what she is wearing and why she is wearing it. When it comes to mainstream media you have to do something that leaves a mark. No one is going to remember you if you are bland and normal. If that was the case then every average Joe working a 9-5 would be famous. Not to mention pretty much every song she releases is a hit.



She does have some help, and some good help at that. Gwen Stefani was a big help in writing some of her songs on her album "The Fame Monster." That title is very appropriate because there is no denying the fact that she is indeed a "Fame Monster." She came out of nowhere with her catchy songs and outrageous outfits and now she is one of the best, well known artists out there. It's crazy how much can happen for one person in a short time.

Youtube and the "viral" video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9XXaU8xnV0&feature=player_embedded

The clip above is just a little example of what is now known as the "Viral Video". These videos are when something either happens on television, radio, or people deliberately film themselves doing something and then post it on Youtube, and then has a quick strong following. This video just happened the other night and is not only blowing up on the internet, but already has a remix to it.

There are a couple things about this that caught my eye. The video is pretty funny in my view and I can definitely see how it would make the rounds on the internet and attract a little bit of a following. The remix is kind of pointless though. It seems that every video that is very popular on Youtube has somebody else trying to remake it into something else. I feel like the videos that become popular are clearly good enough to garner a large following on their own without the use of remixes.

I am all for Youtube. I think it is one of the best websites out there today. It gives people the opportunity to broadcast themselves and maybe get discovered somehow, showing their artistic side, or just having the chance to catch a clip of something you might have missed. That being said I think most of these videos should just be left as is rather than redone.

Loudmouth Porter Sits

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4655110&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

I will start this by saying I am a huge Patriot fan and I dislike the Dolphins and especially Joey Porter. Every week he always has something to say especially when he is about to play the Patriots. He honestly believes that the Patriots cheated him out of 2 championships when we smoked the Steelers in 2 AFC championship games, both played in Pittsburgh. The commissioner, Roger Goodell, reviewed all the tapes from the infamouse Patriot spygate scandal and saw nothing there that would have actually helped give the Patriots the edge. The only reason the Patriots were forced to forfeit a draft pick was because they did tape during a game and that is illegal. So now that it is clear he is just a sore loser because the Pats seem to have their way with him each and every time they play him, lets go back to this past week. He came out to the reporters saying how much he truly hates the Patriots and that they are cheaters and he is better than them. Obviously coming into this game he had a huge bullseye on his chest from the team and the fans. He was going up against a rookie left tackle in Sebastian Vollmer so it seemed like Joey might be able to sneak in a few sacks. But the rookie took Porter completely out of the game. Joey Porter registered zero sacks and what's worse is he also had zero tackles. For a star linebacker to not have one tackle in a game is a huge deal. The Patriots jumbotron worker decided to pay tribute to Porter by posting his face at the end of the game and putting a big stat next to it that said "Joey Porter: 0 Tackles." Then Porter all of a sudden had nothing to say when reporters tried to talk to him. So him sitting down this week is not because of an injury, it's because the Patriots wrecked him last week and his mind is so mixed up he doesn't even know how to put on a jersey anymore. I wouldn't be suprised if he goes on IR for psychological issues. Point of it all, if you are going to try to trash talk the best coach and quarterback and football, you better damn well be able to back it up or they will make you look like a fool.

No. 23

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4650907&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

Everyone and their dog knows who Michael Jordan is. We all know how amazing of a player he was and what he was capable of doing anytime he touched a basketball. I still believe even in his mid 40's he can still play in the NBA. The idea of retiring his number league-wide just doesn't make sense to me. Of all the major pro sports in America (MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA) there is only one number that is retired league-wide, and that is number 42 in Major League Baseball for Jackie Robinson. His number was retired because he single handedly changed the game of baseball. He was a black man coming into an all white sport. Not only was he the first black player in the league but he was a very good player as well. As much as Michael Jordan has done for the NBA, he has not done for it what Jackie Robinson did for baseball. On another note, LeBron saying he is going to switch to number 6 kind of annoys me. Number 6 was Bill Russell's number. Russell won 11 championships in 13 years and was the first black head coach in the NBA. He has done more for the game than Jordan has. Jordan was a great player but he was a major marketing tool very much like LeBron is. Nike is the main reason why those two players have been so high profiled their entire careers. LeBron had a 90 million dollar endorsement signed before he even stepped foot on an NBA court. The point is if he is going to try to petition to get Jordan's number retired then why not petition to get Russell's number retired who clearly did more for the game he just did it in a time when marketing wasn't as big as it is in this time.

Flying Tacos

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/strange/news-article.aspx?storyid=129144&catid=82

Now I take my video games seriously at times but this is ridiculous. This kid really wasted an entire taco to try to show his mom what was up? I don't condone domestic violence one bit and I definitely don't condone throwing of tacos. This story just has problems all over it. First off the mom says she has tried to get her 19 year old out of the house before. If he is 19 that makes him an adult so why not just go through the proper methods in an effort to legally get him out of her house? He's obviously not doing much with his life if he is just playing games and hurling tacos left and right so she shouldn't have to much of a problem winning a case like that. Whatever happens in this case I hope we all learn one thing: Don't throw tacos at your mother.

Balloon Boy

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/balloon.boy.charges/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

So I know you all heard about the great balloon boy last month. Everyone thought a little boy named Falcon was in a silver balloon that was in the air. The whole time he was really in the attic hiding. A lot of people were skeptical of the whole situation and thought it may have been a hoax and finally it was revealed that these lovely parents did stage the whole thing. Apparently the dad is like a scientist and he was trying to get noticed or something, but either way they are now pleading guilty to hoax charges. They are getting very minimal sentencing and a big part of them making the deal to plead guilty to knock the charges down to misdemeanor is because the wife is not a U.S. citizen. She is a citizen of Japan so any felony charges would get her deported back to Japan. I really can't stand parents who try to use their children as a ticket to 15 minutes of fame. It is, in my mind, a sad act to attempt. The video on that page shows the boy, Falcon, basically say this was my parents telling me to do this and the father still tries to sit there and turn it around on the reporter who was just doing his job. It's no secret that this world has some interesting people in it to say the least, but I am definitely satisfied that this was displayed for what it was, a sad publicity stunt.

hijacking Facebook

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/10/facebook.groups.hacked/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

The above article talks about how a group of people called "Control your Info" has been "hijacking" facebook groups to show the Facebook universe that it can be done, basically. What they do is go into a group where an administrator has stepped down and take over. When an administrator of a group steps down and does not appoint anyone else as the new administrator then anyone can take over the rule of the group. I am split in my opinion of this hijacking. On the one hand it is showing a flaw in the Facebook system, but on the other hand why does this group feel the need that they have to do this? Why not just write to the Facebook creators and inform them of this flaw rather than filling the group with spam posting and potentially changing the cause of the group? My thoughts are that in any Facebook group the control should only lie in the hands of the administrator or administrators. When they step down they should either appoint a new administrator or if they don't, the group just stops existing. I don't like how these people can just come in and start posting whatever they feel like in groups that they really have nothing to do with. When it comes down to it, they are just "hijacking" these groups just to do it. It could be a simple process by writing to the creators but they are going about it in a way that is taking over something that isn't theirs.