The European Space Agency's Huygens space probe has completed its seven-year mission to land on Titan, Saturn's largest moon, with almost flawless perfection.
It's hard to believe that somebody planned this whole mission sometime back in 1997 and then waited this long to see it come to fruition. Amazing!
Friday, January 14, 2005
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
The real Social Security crisis
Democrats might as well admit that there really is a Social Security crisis.
I know the facts are on the side of those who say the Social Security crisis is a myth and that it has been manufactured by the Bush administration.
But facts don’t matter in this case. The reality is that Bush has another four years to wreak havoc on this country and that fact alone is the reason why Social Security is in a crisis. Having a president and a Republican administration that is intent on slashing benefits and eliminating the guarantees that are at the heart of Social Security is the real crisis we are faced with today.
While this is a serious concern, I am also optimistic that the sheer incompetence of the Bush administration will undercut their efforts to do too much damage to Social Security. I would expect that Bush’s privatization plan for Social Security will be signed into law about the same time that his manned mission to Mars gets under way.
Just remember that the same folks who are insisting that Social Security is going to go bankrupt are the ones who swore that Saddam Hussein had enormous stockpiles of WMDs.
I know the facts are on the side of those who say the Social Security crisis is a myth and that it has been manufactured by the Bush administration.
But facts don’t matter in this case. The reality is that Bush has another four years to wreak havoc on this country and that fact alone is the reason why Social Security is in a crisis. Having a president and a Republican administration that is intent on slashing benefits and eliminating the guarantees that are at the heart of Social Security is the real crisis we are faced with today.
While this is a serious concern, I am also optimistic that the sheer incompetence of the Bush administration will undercut their efforts to do too much damage to Social Security. I would expect that Bush’s privatization plan for Social Security will be signed into law about the same time that his manned mission to Mars gets under way.
Just remember that the same folks who are insisting that Social Security is going to go bankrupt are the ones who swore that Saddam Hussein had enormous stockpiles of WMDs.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Intellectual diversity
I should know better than to ever read something by right-wing hack Thomas Sowell, but his most recent column titled "Left’s intolerance discourages diversity" that ran in the Express-News on Tuesday is just appalling.
My first thought was if the Left has discouraged diversity, what would our nation be like if it had all been left up to the Right? Would we still have Jim Crow laws and segregated schools and separate lunch counters? Who are they trying to kid here?
Sowell begins his column by mentioning the recent end of Albert Hunt's weekly column on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Hunt was the sole liberal who was given space on those pages and I was distressed last week when I learned that his tenure there was ending, and here we have Sowell using this as an example of the Right’s superiority in supporting ideological diversity. Let's see.... One column per week in an editorial section that is otherwise solidly hard-right - and it is ending with no new liberal taking up the vacant slot. And this is Sowell’s idea of diversity.
Imagine for a moment if the Express-News tried something like this. The paper is constantly berated by the Right as a bastion of liberal bias, and yet they make a point of having not one, but usually two or three conservative columnists on their page everyday - not just once a week. What if they had only one conservative once a week. Would Sowell applaud them for their ideological diversity too?
So the question really is whether or not Sowell is competent enough to be writing a newspaper column in the first place. But let’s go on.
Sowell goes on to talk about when he used to be a professor at UCLA (out in that liberal paradise of California) and notes that they had a "staunchly conservative" economics department there. Hmmmmm. But because they were so interested in having ideological diversity they deigned to hire one professor with more liberal ideas even though he wasn’t really up to snuff with the rest of them, or so Sowell says. Well, there you go. Once again Sowell has demonstrated the Right’s vastly superior interest in maintaining a diversity of ideas in academia.
Next, Sowell claims with no supporting evidence that academia today consists "soley of people ranging from the left to the far left." I would assume he means everyone except for UCLA, the University of Chicago, and those "few good small conservative colleges like Hillsdale or Grove City."
But the best part is when Sowell explains what happens to all those poor conservative intellectuals who are barred from entering the halls of American academia:
"One reason for the prominence of conservative think tanks is that so many top scholars who are not leftists do not find a home in academia and go to work for think tanks instead."
Oh, yeah. And maybe the other reason is MONEY$$$$!!! Did it occur to Sowell that the existence of so many conservative “think tanks” is due to the gobs of corporate money that funds them?? I don’t know for a fact, but I would imagine that most college professors make a pittance compared to what they pay at some of these big think tanks. Gee, why don’t we ask Sowell himself who gave up his job at UCLA to become a Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the conservative Hoover Institution. What do you think, Sowell? Would you like to give up your cush position at the Hoover Institute to go teach an economics class at some public university?
My first thought was if the Left has discouraged diversity, what would our nation be like if it had all been left up to the Right? Would we still have Jim Crow laws and segregated schools and separate lunch counters? Who are they trying to kid here?
Sowell begins his column by mentioning the recent end of Albert Hunt's weekly column on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Hunt was the sole liberal who was given space on those pages and I was distressed last week when I learned that his tenure there was ending, and here we have Sowell using this as an example of the Right’s superiority in supporting ideological diversity. Let's see.... One column per week in an editorial section that is otherwise solidly hard-right - and it is ending with no new liberal taking up the vacant slot. And this is Sowell’s idea of diversity.
Imagine for a moment if the Express-News tried something like this. The paper is constantly berated by the Right as a bastion of liberal bias, and yet they make a point of having not one, but usually two or three conservative columnists on their page everyday - not just once a week. What if they had only one conservative once a week. Would Sowell applaud them for their ideological diversity too?
So the question really is whether or not Sowell is competent enough to be writing a newspaper column in the first place. But let’s go on.
Sowell goes on to talk about when he used to be a professor at UCLA (out in that liberal paradise of California) and notes that they had a "staunchly conservative" economics department there. Hmmmmm. But because they were so interested in having ideological diversity they deigned to hire one professor with more liberal ideas even though he wasn’t really up to snuff with the rest of them, or so Sowell says. Well, there you go. Once again Sowell has demonstrated the Right’s vastly superior interest in maintaining a diversity of ideas in academia.
Next, Sowell claims with no supporting evidence that academia today consists "soley of people ranging from the left to the far left." I would assume he means everyone except for UCLA, the University of Chicago, and those "few good small conservative colleges like Hillsdale or Grove City."
But the best part is when Sowell explains what happens to all those poor conservative intellectuals who are barred from entering the halls of American academia:
"One reason for the prominence of conservative think tanks is that so many top scholars who are not leftists do not find a home in academia and go to work for think tanks instead."
Oh, yeah. And maybe the other reason is MONEY$$$$!!! Did it occur to Sowell that the existence of so many conservative “think tanks” is due to the gobs of corporate money that funds them?? I don’t know for a fact, but I would imagine that most college professors make a pittance compared to what they pay at some of these big think tanks. Gee, why don’t we ask Sowell himself who gave up his job at UCLA to become a Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the conservative Hoover Institution. What do you think, Sowell? Would you like to give up your cush position at the Hoover Institute to go teach an economics class at some public university?
Friday, January 07, 2005
Happy 2 Year Blog Anniversary!
Next week is my two year blog anniversary. I put my first blog post up on Jan. 10, 2003.
It’s hard to believe I’ve kept this thing going for two years already. A lot of other bloggers have come and gone during that period and it is still uncertain what is going to happen with blogging in the future. Recent studies have shown a blog explosion during the past year with blog readership rising dramatically. I can’t say that my own blog readership has seen any corresponding growth, but I like to think that my persistence will pay off in the long-run.
It’s hard to believe I’ve kept this thing going for two years already. A lot of other bloggers have come and gone during that period and it is still uncertain what is going to happen with blogging in the future. Recent studies have shown a blog explosion during the past year with blog readership rising dramatically. I can’t say that my own blog readership has seen any corresponding growth, but I like to think that my persistence will pay off in the long-run.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Blogging MIAs
It looks like we’ve lost another one. Alamo City Commando has apparently pulled down his Express-News Watch blog site. Unlike other blogger MIAs, Commando didn’t just stop posting to his site, he deleted it. So as best I can tell it is gone. That is too bad. While I didn’t agree with most of Commando’s views, I thought they were a constructive place to start a dialogue on important issues.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think the media has a left or right bias so much as it has a money bias. Newspapers are businesses and they will tend to favor the views of their readership in an effort to sell the most papers.
But many more people probably share Commando’s views than mine, so it is important for newspapers to address his criticism’s straight-on, correct mistakes, defend their integrity and rebuild their trust with the public.
Commando’s departure from the blogging scene will also put the Alamo City Crossfire site on hiatus. The next debate topic was supposed to be on global warming, but it looks now like that may not happen. I’ll go ahead and keep my link to the site in the event that I can one day attract some other folks to participate in a debate or a dialogue on the major issues of the day.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think the media has a left or right bias so much as it has a money bias. Newspapers are businesses and they will tend to favor the views of their readership in an effort to sell the most papers.
But many more people probably share Commando’s views than mine, so it is important for newspapers to address his criticism’s straight-on, correct mistakes, defend their integrity and rebuild their trust with the public.
Commando’s departure from the blogging scene will also put the Alamo City Crossfire site on hiatus. The next debate topic was supposed to be on global warming, but it looks now like that may not happen. I’ll go ahead and keep my link to the site in the event that I can one day attract some other folks to participate in a debate or a dialogue on the major issues of the day.
Hall of Fame 2005
There is no question that Wade Boggs and Ryne Sandberg belong in the Hall of Fame. I’m very happy that both were voted in this year. I’m not sure, but I would imagine that the recent enthusiasm for underdog teams like the Chicago Cubs and the Boston Red Sox helped boost their chances as Sandberg was a Cub for his entire career and Boggs spent most of his time with the BoSox.
However, just to put things into context I will point out that Boggs and Sandberg both fell far short of posting the career numbers achieved by Pete Rose.
Boggs is celebrated for being one of the few batters in history to surpass the 3,000 hit mark just before retiring after 18 seasons. But even if he had played six more seasons to match the number of years that Rose played, it is unlikely that he would have caught up to Rose’s record 4,256 hits mark. In fact, he would have to have averaged more than 200 hits per season (208 to be precise) during his final six years to have caught Rose. Boggs had just 80 hits during his final season.
There is still one year left for the Baseball Hall of Fame to redeem itself. If Bud Selig would reinstate Rose’s eligibility he could still be voted in to the Hall in 2006 before the matter goes to the Veteran's committee. As I have noted previously, I think that Pete Rose has suffered enough for the heinous crime of gambling on baseball. The fact that none of his gambling activity impacted his playing career should make his induction into the Hall of Fame a simple matter. It’s not like he was pumped up on steroids, afterall.
However, just to put things into context I will point out that Boggs and Sandberg both fell far short of posting the career numbers achieved by Pete Rose.
Boggs is celebrated for being one of the few batters in history to surpass the 3,000 hit mark just before retiring after 18 seasons. But even if he had played six more seasons to match the number of years that Rose played, it is unlikely that he would have caught up to Rose’s record 4,256 hits mark. In fact, he would have to have averaged more than 200 hits per season (208 to be precise) during his final six years to have caught Rose. Boggs had just 80 hits during his final season.
There is still one year left for the Baseball Hall of Fame to redeem itself. If Bud Selig would reinstate Rose’s eligibility he could still be voted in to the Hall in 2006 before the matter goes to the Veteran's committee. As I have noted previously, I think that Pete Rose has suffered enough for the heinous crime of gambling on baseball. The fact that none of his gambling activity impacted his playing career should make his induction into the Hall of Fame a simple matter. It’s not like he was pumped up on steroids, afterall.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Shame, shame
The House Republicans caved on their plan to gut the House Ethics rules in a bid to prop up their corrupt leader Tom DeLay.
Normally, I would say that such a reversal was due to a healthy sense of shame finally asserting itself. But according to the story linked above, it was just another cold, political calculation just like everything else these Republicans do.
A spokesman for DeLay said Democrats will now lose the one talking point that Republicans believed might have been effective against them.
Wamp said the move "took the bullets right out of [Democratic leader] Nancy Pelosi's gun."
Took the bullet out of her gun.... Hmmmmm. I think the bullet was already in their ass, and that is what prompted the sudden reversal. I’m also sure that Pelosi’s smoking gun has more than just one bullet.
Expect to see more caving from this Republican Congress in the near future (i.e. Social Security privatization).
Normally, I would say that such a reversal was due to a healthy sense of shame finally asserting itself. But according to the story linked above, it was just another cold, political calculation just like everything else these Republicans do.
A spokesman for DeLay said Democrats will now lose the one talking point that Republicans believed might have been effective against them.
Wamp said the move "took the bullets right out of [Democratic leader] Nancy Pelosi's gun."
Took the bullet out of her gun.... Hmmmmm. I think the bullet was already in their ass, and that is what prompted the sudden reversal. I’m also sure that Pelosi’s smoking gun has more than just one bullet.
Expect to see more caving from this Republican Congress in the near future (i.e. Social Security privatization).
Monday, January 03, 2005
More about me
I think I just did one of these, but here’s another by request:
Three names you go by:
Mike
Mike W. Thomas (my byline)
Daddie (This one is new, but it’s wonderful to hear)
Three screennames you have:
MWThomas87
(that's it)
Three things you like about yourself:
My political views (I agree with myself on most political issues)
My tastes in books, music and movies
I’m easy to get along with
Three things you dislike about yourself:
Procrastination
Disorganization
Too self-centered
Three parts of your heritage:
Welsh
British
Cherokee (1/16th)
Three things that scare you:
Republicans in positions of power
small spaces (claustrophobia)
tornadoes
Three of your everyday essentials:
newspapers
coffee
having my son run up and give me a hug when I get home from work
Three things you are wearing right now:
slacks
flannel dress shirt (It is January after all)
new socks I got for Christmas
Three of your favorite bands/artists (at the moment):
U2 (although I still haven’t got their new album)
Bing Crosby
Los Lobos
Three of your favorite songs at present:
I’m an Old Cowhand (From the Rio Grande) by Bing Crosby
Don’t Worry, Baby (Los Lobos)
Don’t Talk About Love by Cole Porter as sung by Danny Kaye
Three things you want to do in the next 12 months:
Throw away junk and get organized
Build a swingset for my son
Write some good stories
Three things you just can't do:
Solve a Rubic’s cube
Read “Finnegan’s Wake” by James Joyce
Explain why Bush deserved a second term as president
Three of your favorite hobbies:
Blogging
Collecting books, music, movies and baseball cards
Reading/Writing
Three things you want to do really badly right now:
Go home and play with my son
Watch some of the movies I got for Christmas
Clean up from the holiday mess
Three careers you're considering:
Keep doing what I’m doing
Editorial writer
Press secretary for President John Kerry (doh!)
Three places you want to go on vacation:
England
Disney World and Epcot
Hawaii
Three things you want to do before you die:
Write a book
Travel more
Watch my great-grandchildren graduate from college
Three names you go by:
Mike
Mike W. Thomas (my byline)
Daddie (This one is new, but it’s wonderful to hear)
Three screennames you have:
MWThomas87
(that's it)
Three things you like about yourself:
My political views (I agree with myself on most political issues)
My tastes in books, music and movies
I’m easy to get along with
Three things you dislike about yourself:
Procrastination
Disorganization
Too self-centered
Three parts of your heritage:
Welsh
British
Cherokee (1/16th)
Three things that scare you:
Republicans in positions of power
small spaces (claustrophobia)
tornadoes
Three of your everyday essentials:
newspapers
coffee
having my son run up and give me a hug when I get home from work
Three things you are wearing right now:
slacks
flannel dress shirt (It is January after all)
new socks I got for Christmas
Three of your favorite bands/artists (at the moment):
U2 (although I still haven’t got their new album)
Bing Crosby
Los Lobos
Three of your favorite songs at present:
I’m an Old Cowhand (From the Rio Grande) by Bing Crosby
Don’t Worry, Baby (Los Lobos)
Don’t Talk About Love by Cole Porter as sung by Danny Kaye
Three things you want to do in the next 12 months:
Throw away junk and get organized
Build a swingset for my son
Write some good stories
Three things you just can't do:
Solve a Rubic’s cube
Read “Finnegan’s Wake” by James Joyce
Explain why Bush deserved a second term as president
Three of your favorite hobbies:
Blogging
Collecting books, music, movies and baseball cards
Reading/Writing
Three things you want to do really badly right now:
Go home and play with my son
Watch some of the movies I got for Christmas
Clean up from the holiday mess
Three careers you're considering:
Keep doing what I’m doing
Editorial writer
Press secretary for President John Kerry (doh!)
Three places you want to go on vacation:
England
Disney World and Epcot
Hawaii
Three things you want to do before you die:
Write a book
Travel more
Watch my great-grandchildren graduate from college
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Tsunami response
President Bush finally made a public appearance the other day to comment on the tsunami that may have killed more than 100,000 people in Indonesia and Tailand. I say finally because the tsunami struck on Saturday and Bush waited three whole days to respond.
Imagine the reaction of most Americans if other world leaders had waited even one day to react to or send condolensces after 9-11. In that context, Bush's lackadaisical response to this global disaster was an embarrassment.
Then there was the initial $15 million in aid that the Bush administration offered. It was only after people began to point out that was less than half the amount the Bush folks will blow in one day for the inauguration festivities next week that the sum was bumped up to $35 million. And even that is a tawdry amount in proportion to what will be needed.
The Washington Post ran a story that was justly critical of Bush's response. Here is the key parts of the story:
Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew
his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics
said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain
cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in
person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of
suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri
Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.
Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's actions and words both
communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the
collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do
in the United States. "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of
terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that
you care," said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign
Relations.
There was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and even some administration officials
familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not
appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. "It's kind of
freaky," a senior career official said.
Kind of freaky, indeed.
Imagine the reaction of most Americans if other world leaders had waited even one day to react to or send condolensces after 9-11. In that context, Bush's lackadaisical response to this global disaster was an embarrassment.
Then there was the initial $15 million in aid that the Bush administration offered. It was only after people began to point out that was less than half the amount the Bush folks will blow in one day for the inauguration festivities next week that the sum was bumped up to $35 million. And even that is a tawdry amount in proportion to what will be needed.
The Washington Post ran a story that was justly critical of Bush's response. Here is the key parts of the story:
Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew
his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics
said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain
cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in
person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of
suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri
Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.
Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's actions and words both
communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the
collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do
in the United States. "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of
terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that
you care," said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign
Relations.
There was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and even some administration officials
familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not
appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. "It's kind of
freaky," a senior career official said.
Kind of freaky, indeed.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
National Film Registry
Two of my favorite films of all time have just been added to the National Film Registry:
"The Court Jester" starring Danny Kaye and "Going My Way" starring Bing
Crosby
Other films of note in this year's list include:
The chariot-racing Biblical-classic "Ben Hur" starring Charlton Heston
The Bruce Lee Kung-Fu masterpiece "Enter the Dragon"
Elvis Presley's "Jailhouse Rock"
The orinigal "The Nutty Professor" starring Jerry Lewis
Steven Spielberg's powerful "Schindler's List"
The musical "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"
and the Clint Eastwood directed "Unforgiven" which took the Western tradition in
a new and darker direction.
National Film Registry:
1989-2003
"The Court Jester" starring Danny Kaye and "Going My Way" starring Bing
Crosby
Other films of note in this year's list include:
The chariot-racing Biblical-classic "Ben Hur" starring Charlton Heston
The Bruce Lee Kung-Fu masterpiece "Enter the Dragon"
Elvis Presley's "Jailhouse Rock"
The orinigal "The Nutty Professor" starring Jerry Lewis
Steven Spielberg's powerful "Schindler's List"
The musical "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"
and the Clint Eastwood directed "Unforgiven" which took the Western tradition in
a new and darker direction.
National Film Registry:
1989-2003
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Fiscal train wreck on the horizon
From the Wall Street Journal:
“Interest on the nation’s borrowing is a big and growing budget item, one that cannot be cut except by slashing the debt itself. The $168 billion in annual payments, much of it to overseas holders of Treasury bonds, represents just over 7 percent of the federal spending. That’s more than the government will spend on education, housing, transportation, science, space and technology combined.”
The same article goes on to say that about 85 percent of the government’s $2.3 trillion in spending this year is untouchable by public consensus. That includes the 20 percent that goes toward defense (an area which has increased by 55 percent under President Bush). The war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are running about $5 billion a month.
And Bush wants to borrow another $2 trillion to finance his Social Security privatization scheme at the same time that he is pushing Congress to make his huge tax cuts for the wealthy permanent.
“Interest on the nation’s borrowing is a big and growing budget item, one that cannot be cut except by slashing the debt itself. The $168 billion in annual payments, much of it to overseas holders of Treasury bonds, represents just over 7 percent of the federal spending. That’s more than the government will spend on education, housing, transportation, science, space and technology combined.”
The same article goes on to say that about 85 percent of the government’s $2.3 trillion in spending this year is untouchable by public consensus. That includes the 20 percent that goes toward defense (an area which has increased by 55 percent under President Bush). The war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are running about $5 billion a month.
And Bush wants to borrow another $2 trillion to finance his Social Security privatization scheme at the same time that he is pushing Congress to make his huge tax cuts for the wealthy permanent.
50 Great Songs
Here are 50 Great Songs that didn’t make the Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Songs list that came out last month.
1. Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic - The Police
2. Do You Feel Like I Do - Peter Frampton
3. Don’t Look Back - Boston
4. Barracuda - Heart
5. Fly Like An Eagle - Steve Miller Band
6. Play That Funky Music - Wild Cherry
7. Juke Box Hero - Foreigner
8. Tom Sawyer - Rush
9. Photograph - Def Leppard
10. Legs - ZZ Top
11. Jump - Van Halen
12. Rich Girl - Hall & Oates
13. Sledgehammer - Peter Gabriel
14. Will The Wolf Survive - Los Lobos
15. Freeze Frame - J. Geils Band
16. Another One Bites The Dust - Queen
17. Living On A Prayer - Bon Jovi
18. Black Magic Woman - Santana
19. Give It Away - Red Hot Chili Peppers
20. Turn To Stone - ELO
21. Takin’ Care of Business - Bachman Turner Overdrive
22. Get Lucky - Loverboy
23. Radar Love - Golden Earring
24. YMCA - The Village People
25. Girls Just Want To Have Fun - Cyndi Lauper
26. Crazy On You - Heart
27. Gimme All Your Lovin’ - ZZ Top
28. Centerfold - J. Geils Band
29. You Got Lucky - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
30. Just What I Needed - The Cars
31. You Shook Me All Night Long - AC/DC
32. We Got The Beat - The Go Gos
33. Who Are You - The Who
34. Like A Virgin - Madonna
35. What I Like About You - The Romantics
36. Just The Way You Are - Billy Joel
37. Running With The Devil - Van Halen
38. Thriller - Michael Jackson
39. Under Pressure - Queen w/ David Bowie
40. Spirits In The Material World - The Police
41. Band On The Run - Wings
42. Yellow Submarine - The Beatles
43. Whip It - Devo
44. Start Me Up - The Rolling Stones
45. Sowing The Seeds Of Love - Tears For Fears
46. Time - Pink Floyd
47. LA Woman - The Doors
48. Sir Duke - Stevie Wonder
49. Spinning Wheel - Blood, Sweat and Tears
50. Remedy - The Black Crowes
1. Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic - The Police
2. Do You Feel Like I Do - Peter Frampton
3. Don’t Look Back - Boston
4. Barracuda - Heart
5. Fly Like An Eagle - Steve Miller Band
6. Play That Funky Music - Wild Cherry
7. Juke Box Hero - Foreigner
8. Tom Sawyer - Rush
9. Photograph - Def Leppard
10. Legs - ZZ Top
11. Jump - Van Halen
12. Rich Girl - Hall & Oates
13. Sledgehammer - Peter Gabriel
14. Will The Wolf Survive - Los Lobos
15. Freeze Frame - J. Geils Band
16. Another One Bites The Dust - Queen
17. Living On A Prayer - Bon Jovi
18. Black Magic Woman - Santana
19. Give It Away - Red Hot Chili Peppers
20. Turn To Stone - ELO
21. Takin’ Care of Business - Bachman Turner Overdrive
22. Get Lucky - Loverboy
23. Radar Love - Golden Earring
24. YMCA - The Village People
25. Girls Just Want To Have Fun - Cyndi Lauper
26. Crazy On You - Heart
27. Gimme All Your Lovin’ - ZZ Top
28. Centerfold - J. Geils Band
29. You Got Lucky - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
30. Just What I Needed - The Cars
31. You Shook Me All Night Long - AC/DC
32. We Got The Beat - The Go Gos
33. Who Are You - The Who
34. Like A Virgin - Madonna
35. What I Like About You - The Romantics
36. Just The Way You Are - Billy Joel
37. Running With The Devil - Van Halen
38. Thriller - Michael Jackson
39. Under Pressure - Queen w/ David Bowie
40. Spirits In The Material World - The Police
41. Band On The Run - Wings
42. Yellow Submarine - The Beatles
43. Whip It - Devo
44. Start Me Up - The Rolling Stones
45. Sowing The Seeds Of Love - Tears For Fears
46. Time - Pink Floyd
47. LA Woman - The Doors
48. Sir Duke - Stevie Wonder
49. Spinning Wheel - Blood, Sweat and Tears
50. Remedy - The Black Crowes
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Greatest Hits collections
CNN has a list of what they deem to be the best of the Best Ofs
or the greatest Greatest Hits collections available on single discs.
Let me just say right off that their selections are awful. Yuck! I would throw out half of them in a heartbeat. You know something is wrong when they select as the very top greatest hits collection “Echo and the Bunnymen.” Their list is chock full of 80’s era New Wave Euro-Pop junk. Some of their other favorites that I would discard include:
The Cure
The Smiths
Siouxsie and the Banshees
New Order
A Tribe Called Quest
Gang of Four
The Cramps
The Buzzcocks
The Jesus and Mary Chain
Pet Shop Boys
The Jam
The Pixies
Blur
Depeche Mode
XTC
The Specials
Their list isn’t all bad. Here are some that they get right:
"Changesbowie," David Bowie (1990)
"Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass)," the Rolling Stones (1966)
"Endless Summer," the Beach Boys (1974)
"Chronicle, Vol. 1," Creedence Clearwater Revival (1976)
"Smash Hits," Jimi Hendrix (1969)
"Legend," Bob Marley (1984)
"The Very Best of Prince," Prince (2001)
"Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy," the Who (1971)
"20 All-Time Greatest Hits!," James Brown (1991)
"ELV1S 30 #1 Hits," Elvis Presley (2002)
"Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits," Bob Dylan (1967)
"1," the Beatles (2000)
"The Great Twenty-Eight," Chuck Berry (1982)
"Greatest Hits," Aerosmith (1980)
"Greatest Hits," Elton John (1974)
"Greatest Hits: We Will Rock You Edition," Queen (2004)
"Greatest Hits," the Doors (1996)
"Number Ones," Michael Jackson (2003)
"Greatest Hits (& Some That Will Be)," Willie Nelson (1981)
"Eponymous," R.E.M. (1988)
And they at least give honorable mentions to:
"The Best of 1980-1990," U2 (1998)
"Complete Greatest Hits," the Cars (2002)
"Their Greatest Hits (1971-1975)," the Eagles (1976)
"The Very Best of Otis Redding, Vol. 1," Otis Redding (1992)
One problem with their list is that they limit it to single disc collections. I can understand not including big pricey box sets, but two-disc sets should not be off limits. By including two-disc collections we can pick up a number of other great sets like:
The Bee Gees Greatest
Rush - Chronicles
Neil Young: Decade
Billy Joel: Greatest Hits Vol. 1 & 2
Lynyrd Skynyrd: Gold and Platinum
And I’m sure there are many others.
But since they filled their list with so many throwaway New Wave and Punk groups they left no room for:
Bruce Springsteen
The Police
ZZ Top
Van Halen
The Band
Heart
Stevie Ray Vaughn
Ray Charles
Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers
John Mellencamp
Van Morrison
Rod Stewart
Stevie Wonder
Hall & Oates
Simon & Garfunkel
James Taylor
Roy Orbison
Peter Gabriel
Johnny Cash
ELO
Buddy Holly
Cheap Trick
Smashing Pumpkins
Los Lobos
The Black Crowes
Deep Purple
Boston
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Bon Jovi
Genesis
Buffalo Springfield
Billy Squier
Gordon Lightfoot
Jim Croce
Talking Heads
REO Speedwagon
Rick Springfield
Santana
Lyle Lovett
Dwight Yoakum
John Denver
Eric Clapton
Foreigner
The B-52s
Asia
The Kingston Trio
The Doobie Brothers
INXS
Loverboy
Little Richard
Sting
Neil Diamond
Jerry Jeff Walker
OK, I’ll stop now.
or the greatest Greatest Hits collections available on single discs.
Let me just say right off that their selections are awful. Yuck! I would throw out half of them in a heartbeat. You know something is wrong when they select as the very top greatest hits collection “Echo and the Bunnymen.” Their list is chock full of 80’s era New Wave Euro-Pop junk. Some of their other favorites that I would discard include:
The Cure
The Smiths
Siouxsie and the Banshees
New Order
A Tribe Called Quest
Gang of Four
The Cramps
The Buzzcocks
The Jesus and Mary Chain
Pet Shop Boys
The Jam
The Pixies
Blur
Depeche Mode
XTC
The Specials
Their list isn’t all bad. Here are some that they get right:
"Changesbowie," David Bowie (1990)
"Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass)," the Rolling Stones (1966)
"Endless Summer," the Beach Boys (1974)
"Chronicle, Vol. 1," Creedence Clearwater Revival (1976)
"Smash Hits," Jimi Hendrix (1969)
"Legend," Bob Marley (1984)
"The Very Best of Prince," Prince (2001)
"Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy," the Who (1971)
"20 All-Time Greatest Hits!," James Brown (1991)
"ELV1S 30 #1 Hits," Elvis Presley (2002)
"Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits," Bob Dylan (1967)
"1," the Beatles (2000)
"The Great Twenty-Eight," Chuck Berry (1982)
"Greatest Hits," Aerosmith (1980)
"Greatest Hits," Elton John (1974)
"Greatest Hits: We Will Rock You Edition," Queen (2004)
"Greatest Hits," the Doors (1996)
"Number Ones," Michael Jackson (2003)
"Greatest Hits (& Some That Will Be)," Willie Nelson (1981)
"Eponymous," R.E.M. (1988)
And they at least give honorable mentions to:
"The Best of 1980-1990," U2 (1998)
"Complete Greatest Hits," the Cars (2002)
"Their Greatest Hits (1971-1975)," the Eagles (1976)
"The Very Best of Otis Redding, Vol. 1," Otis Redding (1992)
One problem with their list is that they limit it to single disc collections. I can understand not including big pricey box sets, but two-disc sets should not be off limits. By including two-disc collections we can pick up a number of other great sets like:
The Bee Gees Greatest
Rush - Chronicles
Neil Young: Decade
Billy Joel: Greatest Hits Vol. 1 & 2
Lynyrd Skynyrd: Gold and Platinum
And I’m sure there are many others.
But since they filled their list with so many throwaway New Wave and Punk groups they left no room for:
Bruce Springsteen
The Police
ZZ Top
Van Halen
The Band
Heart
Stevie Ray Vaughn
Ray Charles
Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers
John Mellencamp
Van Morrison
Rod Stewart
Stevie Wonder
Hall & Oates
Simon & Garfunkel
James Taylor
Roy Orbison
Peter Gabriel
Johnny Cash
ELO
Buddy Holly
Cheap Trick
Smashing Pumpkins
Los Lobos
The Black Crowes
Deep Purple
Boston
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Bon Jovi
Genesis
Buffalo Springfield
Billy Squier
Gordon Lightfoot
Jim Croce
Talking Heads
REO Speedwagon
Rick Springfield
Santana
Lyle Lovett
Dwight Yoakum
John Denver
Eric Clapton
Foreigner
The B-52s
Asia
The Kingston Trio
The Doobie Brothers
INXS
Loverboy
Little Richard
Sting
Neil Diamond
Jerry Jeff Walker
OK, I’ll stop now.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
33 Questions
I swiped this from Keri at 500 Miles From Nowhere and she swiped it from someone else.
1) WHAT COLOR ARE YOUR BEDROOM WALLS?
White, but my wife wants them painted soon.
2) WHAT BOOK ARE YOU READING NOW?
“The Discoverers” By Daniel J. Boorstin
3) WHAT'S ON YOUR MOUSE PAD?
Star Trek
4) FAVORITE BOARD GAME?
I always liked Trivial Pursuit. Haven’t played it in ages, though.
5) FAVORITE MAGAZINE?
The New Yorker
6) FAVORITE SMELL?
Vanilla
7) FAVORITE COLOR?
Maroon
8) LEAST FAVORITE COLOR?
Burnt orange
9) HOW MANY RINGS BEFORE YOUR ANSWERING MACHINE PICKS UP?
Four or five I think. I’m always having to talk over the answering machine before folks hang up.
10) MOST IMPORTANT MATERIAL THING IN MY LIFE?
My house and my lot which backs up to a lovely green belt.
11) FAVORITE FLAVOR OF ICE CREAM?
French vanilla
12) DO YOU BREAK THE SPEED LIMIT DAILY?
Who doesn’t?
13) DO YOU HAVE A STUFFED ANIMAL IN YOUR ROOM SOMEWHERE?
Yes. They’re everywhere!!
14) STORMS - COOL OR SCARY?
Very cool. Especially those fantastic lightning shows off in the distance.
15) FAVORITE DRINK?
Vanilla Coke
16) WHEN IS YOUR BIRTHDAY?
July 5
17) FAVORITE VEGETABLES?
Tomatoes, sliced and covered with fresh mozzarella.
18) IF YOU COULD HAVE ANY JOB, WHAT WOULD IT BE?
An editorial columnist. Then I could inflict my views on a huge audience every week.
19) IF YOU COULD HAVE ANY COLOR HAIR, WHAT WOULD IT BE?
My hair started turning gray when I hit 30, but I’m perfectly OK with it. Really.
20) HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN LOVE?
Non-stop since 1990.
21) TOP THREE FAVORITE MOVIES (NOT IN ORDER because I couldn't possibly pick an order)? (AKA Movies I can watch over and over) And this changes on a regular basis...
Back To The Future
The Court Jester
Lord of the Rings
22) DO YOU TYPE WITH YOUR FINGERS ON THE RIGHT KEYS?
Yep!
23) WHAT'S UNDER YOUR BED?
The cat whenever he’s done something bad.
24) WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE NUMBER?
5
25) FAVORITE SPORT TO WATCH ON TV & IN PERSON?
Baseball
26) WHAT IS YOUR SINGLE BIGGEST FEAR?
Bush getting re-elected. Oops! Time to pick a new one.
27) FAVORITE CD OF ALL TIME/RIGHT NOW?
All time: Ken Burn’s Jazz
Right Now: The Rolling Stones: Exiles on Main Street
28) FAVORITE TV SHOW OF ALL TIME & RIGHT NOW?
All time: Star Trek/X-Files
Right now: Lost
29) HAMBURGERS OR HOT DOGS?
Lot of good hamburger places here.
30) THE COOLEST PLACES YOU'VE EVER BEEN?
I like big cities with lots of history! New York, Boston, Chicago.
31) WHAT WALLPAPER AND/OR SCREENSAVER IS ON YOUR COMPUTER RIGHT NOW?
My son sitting in Santa’s lap.
32) DOES MCDONALD'S SKIMP ON YOUR FRIES & DO YOU CARE?
Nope and not really.
33) FAVORITE CHAIN RESTAURANT?
Mamacita’s. They have the best chicken flautas made with flour tortillas.
1) WHAT COLOR ARE YOUR BEDROOM WALLS?
White, but my wife wants them painted soon.
2) WHAT BOOK ARE YOU READING NOW?
“The Discoverers” By Daniel J. Boorstin
3) WHAT'S ON YOUR MOUSE PAD?
Star Trek
4) FAVORITE BOARD GAME?
I always liked Trivial Pursuit. Haven’t played it in ages, though.
5) FAVORITE MAGAZINE?
The New Yorker
6) FAVORITE SMELL?
Vanilla
7) FAVORITE COLOR?
Maroon
8) LEAST FAVORITE COLOR?
Burnt orange
9) HOW MANY RINGS BEFORE YOUR ANSWERING MACHINE PICKS UP?
Four or five I think. I’m always having to talk over the answering machine before folks hang up.
10) MOST IMPORTANT MATERIAL THING IN MY LIFE?
My house and my lot which backs up to a lovely green belt.
11) FAVORITE FLAVOR OF ICE CREAM?
French vanilla
12) DO YOU BREAK THE SPEED LIMIT DAILY?
Who doesn’t?
13) DO YOU HAVE A STUFFED ANIMAL IN YOUR ROOM SOMEWHERE?
Yes. They’re everywhere!!
14) STORMS - COOL OR SCARY?
Very cool. Especially those fantastic lightning shows off in the distance.
15) FAVORITE DRINK?
Vanilla Coke
16) WHEN IS YOUR BIRTHDAY?
July 5
17) FAVORITE VEGETABLES?
Tomatoes, sliced and covered with fresh mozzarella.
18) IF YOU COULD HAVE ANY JOB, WHAT WOULD IT BE?
An editorial columnist. Then I could inflict my views on a huge audience every week.
19) IF YOU COULD HAVE ANY COLOR HAIR, WHAT WOULD IT BE?
My hair started turning gray when I hit 30, but I’m perfectly OK with it. Really.
20) HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN LOVE?
Non-stop since 1990.
21) TOP THREE FAVORITE MOVIES (NOT IN ORDER because I couldn't possibly pick an order)? (AKA Movies I can watch over and over) And this changes on a regular basis...
Back To The Future
The Court Jester
Lord of the Rings
22) DO YOU TYPE WITH YOUR FINGERS ON THE RIGHT KEYS?
Yep!
23) WHAT'S UNDER YOUR BED?
The cat whenever he’s done something bad.
24) WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE NUMBER?
5
25) FAVORITE SPORT TO WATCH ON TV & IN PERSON?
Baseball
26) WHAT IS YOUR SINGLE BIGGEST FEAR?
Bush getting re-elected. Oops! Time to pick a new one.
27) FAVORITE CD OF ALL TIME/RIGHT NOW?
All time: Ken Burn’s Jazz
Right Now: The Rolling Stones: Exiles on Main Street
28) FAVORITE TV SHOW OF ALL TIME & RIGHT NOW?
All time: Star Trek/X-Files
Right now: Lost
29) HAMBURGERS OR HOT DOGS?
Lot of good hamburger places here.
30) THE COOLEST PLACES YOU'VE EVER BEEN?
I like big cities with lots of history! New York, Boston, Chicago.
31) WHAT WALLPAPER AND/OR SCREENSAVER IS ON YOUR COMPUTER RIGHT NOW?
My son sitting in Santa’s lap.
32) DOES MCDONALD'S SKIMP ON YOUR FRIES & DO YOU CARE?
Nope and not really.
33) FAVORITE CHAIN RESTAURANT?
Mamacita’s. They have the best chicken flautas made with flour tortillas.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Some movie reviews
I, Robot
Maybe some day there will be a movie called “Isaac Asimov’s ‘I, Robot’”
This movie was so far removed from the story that Asimov told that they dared not even say “Based on the book by ...” in the credits. Instead, they say “Suggested by a book by Isaac Asimov.”
About the only things the book and the movie share is the reference to Asimov’s famous Laws of Robotics, which are spelled out at the beginning of the film.
That being said, however, this was not a bad movie. It’s by no means a classic, but it is a decent B-movie action flick and worth the price of a rental at the least. Will Smith plays a futuristic cop chasing down rouge robots with the same zeal that he showed chasing aliens in the Men in Black movies. I enjoyed picking out the Chicago landmarks I saw this summer from the futuristic cityscape designed for the movie.
Hidalgo
This is a premature review because I haven’t finished watching the movie. I bought a used copy from Hollywood Video a while back and we just sat down last night and watched the first part of it. So far it has been pretty good, I was looking forward to seeing Viggo Mortensen in his first film since “Lord of the Rings,” but I was immediately struck by the plot similarities with Tom Cruise’s “The Last Samurai.”
Both films are set in the post-Civil War era and feature a protagonist who is profoundly changed after witnessing a U.S. Army massacre of an unarmed Indian village. Both protagonists then become alcoholics and wind up as performers in Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show. Then they each decide to seek out a new path by facing challenges in a foreign country: Tom Cruise goes to China and Viggo Mortensen goes to Saudi Arabia.
Hopefully, this is where the similarities end and I will enjoy the rest of the movie.
Maybe some day there will be a movie called “Isaac Asimov’s ‘I, Robot’”
This movie was so far removed from the story that Asimov told that they dared not even say “Based on the book by ...” in the credits. Instead, they say “Suggested by a book by Isaac Asimov.”
About the only things the book and the movie share is the reference to Asimov’s famous Laws of Robotics, which are spelled out at the beginning of the film.
That being said, however, this was not a bad movie. It’s by no means a classic, but it is a decent B-movie action flick and worth the price of a rental at the least. Will Smith plays a futuristic cop chasing down rouge robots with the same zeal that he showed chasing aliens in the Men in Black movies. I enjoyed picking out the Chicago landmarks I saw this summer from the futuristic cityscape designed for the movie.
Hidalgo
This is a premature review because I haven’t finished watching the movie. I bought a used copy from Hollywood Video a while back and we just sat down last night and watched the first part of it. So far it has been pretty good, I was looking forward to seeing Viggo Mortensen in his first film since “Lord of the Rings,” but I was immediately struck by the plot similarities with Tom Cruise’s “The Last Samurai.”
Both films are set in the post-Civil War era and feature a protagonist who is profoundly changed after witnessing a U.S. Army massacre of an unarmed Indian village. Both protagonists then become alcoholics and wind up as performers in Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show. Then they each decide to seek out a new path by facing challenges in a foreign country: Tom Cruise goes to China and Viggo Mortensen goes to Saudi Arabia.
Hopefully, this is where the similarities end and I will enjoy the rest of the movie.
Defending Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, long a pariah of the left, is now taking flak from the political right. Recently he has been harshly criticized by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf.
Despite Bush’s efforts to defend Rumsfeld, his support is continuing to erode and now a new poll shows 52 percent want him out.
Now, I agree that Rumsfeld should be out on his rear due to the awful miscalculations and mismanagment of the war in Iraq. But then so should the entire Bush administration starting with our Incompetent Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush.
Unfortunately, when we had an opportunity to do just that a little more than a month ago, 51 percent of my fellow citizens chose to send this same crew back to Washington for four more years. So what good would it do to replace Rumsfeld now, when all he is doing is following the orders set out by Bush and Co.? If people are finally acknowledging that things aren’t going as smoothly in Iraq as they could or should be, they need to look further than Rumsfeld to lay the blame. Something has to change besides just the people carrying out the administration’s marching orders.
Despite Bush’s efforts to defend Rumsfeld, his support is continuing to erode and now a new poll shows 52 percent want him out.
Now, I agree that Rumsfeld should be out on his rear due to the awful miscalculations and mismanagment of the war in Iraq. But then so should the entire Bush administration starting with our Incompetent Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush.
Unfortunately, when we had an opportunity to do just that a little more than a month ago, 51 percent of my fellow citizens chose to send this same crew back to Washington for four more years. So what good would it do to replace Rumsfeld now, when all he is doing is following the orders set out by Bush and Co.? If people are finally acknowledging that things aren’t going as smoothly in Iraq as they could or should be, they need to look further than Rumsfeld to lay the blame. Something has to change besides just the people carrying out the administration’s marching orders.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Disney’s rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall...
Disney shut
down its traditional animation studio earlier this year essentially
conceding that the future belongs to computer animation.
The last big Disney release in the traditional style was “Home on the Range”
which did mediocre at the Box Office ($50 million), slightly less than
”Brother Bear” ($85 million) which had preceded it.
Disney has been on a downward
slide since the peak of its latest animation renneissance with “The
Lion King” ($328 million) in 1994. The next year, “Pocohantas” pulled in
less than half that amount ($141 million) and in 1996 “The Hunchback of
Notre Dame” just barely made it across the $100 million mark. Even worse,
1997’s “Hercules” couldn¹t even break into triple digits, stalling at $99
million and becoming the first major Disney animated release to miss that
mark since 1990’s “The Rescuers Down Under.”
”Mulan” did slightly better in 1998 ($120 million) as did “Tarzan” in 1999
($171 million), but none were breaking box office records like Disney
executives had hoped.
In the meantime, Pixar’s computer animated films like “Toy Story” ($191
million), “A Bug¹s Life” ($162 million) and “Toy Story II” ($245 million)
were mopping up at the box office.
So Disney tried to revamp its formula, first with a hipper, cutting edge comedy “The Emperor’s New Groove” ($89 million) and then with the modernistic “Atlantis: The Lost Empire” ($84 million). Then it looked like they were finally heading back in the right direction with the minor hit “Lilo & Stitch” ($145 million). But Pixar had just released ”Monsters Inc.” ($255 million) and Disney’s next film was the hugely disappointing “Treasure Planet” which made a paltry $38 million.
That is probably when the Disney executives decided to pull the plug. They went ahead and let the last two films in the pike finish up and then they canned their animation staff.
I think that will prove to be a big mistake. This is not the first time Disney went through a downturn with its animation pictures. The first golden period started right at the beginning with “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves” in 1937. This was followed by a string of hits that are now classics including “Fantasia” and “Pinocchio” in 1940, “Dumbo” in 1941 and “Bambi” in 1942. But things fell off during the latter part of the decade when the most memorable film was probably “Song of the South” in 1946.
But Disney bounced back with another string of hits in 1950 beginning with “Cinderella”, followed by “Alice in Wonderland” (1951), “Peter Pan” (1953), “Lady and the Tramp” (1955) and “Sleeping Beauty” (1959). This strong period carried into the 1960s with “101 Dalmations” (1961), “Mary Poppins” (1964) and “The Jungle Book” (1967).
But then things fell off once again and there was another long period with few hit movies until the studio hit its stride once more beginning with “The Little Mermaid” in 1989, “Beauty and the Beast” in 1991 and “Aladdin” in 1992 leading up to “The Lion King.”
If Disney’s current executives would just be patient I’m sure the studio would strike another vein of gold before long. But now they may have gone and killed the goose that was laying the golden eggs.
down its traditional animation studio earlier this year essentially
conceding that the future belongs to computer animation.
The last big Disney release in the traditional style was “Home on the Range”
which did mediocre at the Box Office ($50 million), slightly less than
”Brother Bear” ($85 million) which had preceded it.
Disney has been on a downward
slide since the peak of its latest animation renneissance with “The
Lion King” ($328 million) in 1994. The next year, “Pocohantas” pulled in
less than half that amount ($141 million) and in 1996 “The Hunchback of
Notre Dame” just barely made it across the $100 million mark. Even worse,
1997’s “Hercules” couldn¹t even break into triple digits, stalling at $99
million and becoming the first major Disney animated release to miss that
mark since 1990’s “The Rescuers Down Under.”
”Mulan” did slightly better in 1998 ($120 million) as did “Tarzan” in 1999
($171 million), but none were breaking box office records like Disney
executives had hoped.
In the meantime, Pixar’s computer animated films like “Toy Story” ($191
million), “A Bug¹s Life” ($162 million) and “Toy Story II” ($245 million)
were mopping up at the box office.
So Disney tried to revamp its formula, first with a hipper, cutting edge comedy “The Emperor’s New Groove” ($89 million) and then with the modernistic “Atlantis: The Lost Empire” ($84 million). Then it looked like they were finally heading back in the right direction with the minor hit “Lilo & Stitch” ($145 million). But Pixar had just released ”Monsters Inc.” ($255 million) and Disney’s next film was the hugely disappointing “Treasure Planet” which made a paltry $38 million.
That is probably when the Disney executives decided to pull the plug. They went ahead and let the last two films in the pike finish up and then they canned their animation staff.
I think that will prove to be a big mistake. This is not the first time Disney went through a downturn with its animation pictures. The first golden period started right at the beginning with “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves” in 1937. This was followed by a string of hits that are now classics including “Fantasia” and “Pinocchio” in 1940, “Dumbo” in 1941 and “Bambi” in 1942. But things fell off during the latter part of the decade when the most memorable film was probably “Song of the South” in 1946.
But Disney bounced back with another string of hits in 1950 beginning with “Cinderella”, followed by “Alice in Wonderland” (1951), “Peter Pan” (1953), “Lady and the Tramp” (1955) and “Sleeping Beauty” (1959). This strong period carried into the 1960s with “101 Dalmations” (1961), “Mary Poppins” (1964) and “The Jungle Book” (1967).
But then things fell off once again and there was another long period with few hit movies until the studio hit its stride once more beginning with “The Little Mermaid” in 1989, “Beauty and the Beast” in 1991 and “Aladdin” in 1992 leading up to “The Lion King.”
If Disney’s current executives would just be patient I’m sure the studio would strike another vein of gold before long. But now they may have gone and killed the goose that was laying the golden eggs.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Missing Movies - 2004
I’ve been pretty remiss in my movie watching this year. I guess being a new parent had somethingto do with it.
I’ve only seen two movies in the theater this year - Spider Man II and National Treasure. But what is most surprising to me is that I have only seen six movies overall that were released in 2004:
Spider Man II
National Treasure
Shrek II
Fahrenheit 9/11
Around the World in 80 Days
Laws of Attraction
That’s it. Don’t ask me about Academy Awards this year. I haven’t a clue. Oh, I guess I could make an educated guess based on what I’ve read, but I haven’t seen anything that will get more than a couple of technical nominations.
I wasn’t quite this bad in 2003, but I was close. I’ve since caught up on most of the 2003 films I wanted to see and I likewise will probably see most of the 2004 movies in ‘05.
Following is my annual End of Year List of Movies I Still Want To See:
Finding Neverland
The Aviator
Million Dollar Baby
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
The Incredibles
Bourne Supremacy
Ray
I, Robot
Troy
Van Helsing
Collateral
Polar Express
The Terminal
Hidalgo
Ladder 49
The Manchurian Candidate
Friday Night Lights
Hell Boy
King Arthur
Home on the Range
Ocean’s Twelve
Sky Captain
Alexander
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The Alamo
Kinsey
De-Lovely
Closer
The Passion of the Christ
The Day After Tomorrow
Shark Tale
Dodge Ball
Starsky & Hutch
Secret Window
Update
So as not to seem like I have seen no movies this year, here are the 2003 films that I saw in 2004:
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
Finding Nemo
Matrix Revolutions
Seabiscuit
Master and Commander
The Last Samurai
Freaky Friday
Cold Mountain
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Love Actually
Lost in Translation
Under the Tuscan Sun
Secondhand Lions
Whale Rider
I’ve only seen two movies in the theater this year - Spider Man II and National Treasure. But what is most surprising to me is that I have only seen six movies overall that were released in 2004:
Spider Man II
National Treasure
Shrek II
Fahrenheit 9/11
Around the World in 80 Days
Laws of Attraction
That’s it. Don’t ask me about Academy Awards this year. I haven’t a clue. Oh, I guess I could make an educated guess based on what I’ve read, but I haven’t seen anything that will get more than a couple of technical nominations.
I wasn’t quite this bad in 2003, but I was close. I’ve since caught up on most of the 2003 films I wanted to see and I likewise will probably see most of the 2004 movies in ‘05.
Following is my annual End of Year List of Movies I Still Want To See:
Finding Neverland
The Aviator
Million Dollar Baby
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
The Incredibles
Bourne Supremacy
Ray
I, Robot
Troy
Van Helsing
Collateral
Polar Express
The Terminal
Hidalgo
Ladder 49
The Manchurian Candidate
Friday Night Lights
Hell Boy
King Arthur
Home on the Range
Ocean’s Twelve
Sky Captain
Alexander
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The Alamo
Kinsey
De-Lovely
Closer
The Passion of the Christ
The Day After Tomorrow
Shark Tale
Dodge Ball
Starsky & Hutch
Secret Window
Update
So as not to seem like I have seen no movies this year, here are the 2003 films that I saw in 2004:
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
Finding Nemo
Matrix Revolutions
Seabiscuit
Master and Commander
The Last Samurai
Freaky Friday
Cold Mountain
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Love Actually
Lost in Translation
Under the Tuscan Sun
Secondhand Lions
Whale Rider
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
The more things change...
The Wall Street Journal on Monday had a Page 1 feature story about the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets. The reason for the story is to report the alarming news that the Corps is facing big changes being pushed by the new commandant Lt. Gen. John Van Alstyne.
The only problem with the story (which unfortunately is not available online) is that it could have been written when I was there 20 years ago. The Corps is always undergoing big changes.
Here is what Van Alstyne is demanding: He wants the cadets to spend more time studying and less time hazing freshmen. That's not any different. They have always stressed studying and have tried various methods of getting cadet grades up. When I was there we had three hours a night of enforced study time. If you had a big test the next day you were allowed to sleep in and skip morning formation. The cadets with the highest grades usually got the best assignments and were promoted higher than the rest.
The article claims that cadets get up at 5 a.m. every morning and go on runs. I recall setting my alarm for 6 a.m. and morning runs were only done once a week and were a good excuse to get out of going to morning formation. It is true that some cadets wouldn't get enough sleep and would doze off in class, but the smart ones would not schedule early morning classes and would go back to bed for a couple of hours after morning formation.
The article also notes that Van Alstyne cracked down on some cadets who were caught paddling underclassmen with axe handles. But that practice was forbidden when I was there and would have earned a suspension even back then.
I always thought the Corps changed significantly between my freshman and sophomore years. That was the year that a cadet who had concealed a heart condition from his superiors collapsed and died after a morning workout session. The commandant's office at the time came down pretty hard on us. Suddenly we were not allowed to make freshmen do more than a dozen push-ups at a time. We had to allow them to eat their meals - no more "fish bites" which meant three chews and swallow. Old Army was dead!
But in reality the Corps was still the Corps. Little things like that change all the time but the important things stay the same. This reporter obviously listened to too many old Ags who can't see the forest for the trees. When I read the story I see things haven't really changed that much after all.
The only problem with the story (which unfortunately is not available online) is that it could have been written when I was there 20 years ago. The Corps is always undergoing big changes.
Here is what Van Alstyne is demanding: He wants the cadets to spend more time studying and less time hazing freshmen. That's not any different. They have always stressed studying and have tried various methods of getting cadet grades up. When I was there we had three hours a night of enforced study time. If you had a big test the next day you were allowed to sleep in and skip morning formation. The cadets with the highest grades usually got the best assignments and were promoted higher than the rest.
The article claims that cadets get up at 5 a.m. every morning and go on runs. I recall setting my alarm for 6 a.m. and morning runs were only done once a week and were a good excuse to get out of going to morning formation. It is true that some cadets wouldn't get enough sleep and would doze off in class, but the smart ones would not schedule early morning classes and would go back to bed for a couple of hours after morning formation.
The article also notes that Van Alstyne cracked down on some cadets who were caught paddling underclassmen with axe handles. But that practice was forbidden when I was there and would have earned a suspension even back then.
I always thought the Corps changed significantly between my freshman and sophomore years. That was the year that a cadet who had concealed a heart condition from his superiors collapsed and died after a morning workout session. The commandant's office at the time came down pretty hard on us. Suddenly we were not allowed to make freshmen do more than a dozen push-ups at a time. We had to allow them to eat their meals - no more "fish bites" which meant three chews and swallow. Old Army was dead!
But in reality the Corps was still the Corps. Little things like that change all the time but the important things stay the same. This reporter obviously listened to too many old Ags who can't see the forest for the trees. When I read the story I see things haven't really changed that much after all.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Planting a legitimate question
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was put on the spot last week during a Q&A session with soldiers about to go into Iraq when one of the troops asked the following question:
"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?"
The question garnered cheers from the troops and proved a major embarrassment to Rumsfeld and the Bush administration.
But now the Pentagon is questioning whether the question was appropriate because it was apparently “planted” by a reporter who was embedded with the troops.
I don’t believe the reporter did anything wrong in this instance and the very fact that the Bush administration is raising this as an issue is simply an effort on their part to skirt the issue and divert attention from their own malfeasance and irresponsible handling of the Iraq war.
It is not like the reporter in question forced the soldier to ask a question that he wasn’t willing to ask himself. In fact, the question was based on concerns expressed by many soldiers that the reporter had come across while being embedded with their unit. The fact that the question garnered applause from the rest of the troops after it was asked bears this out.
Also, the fact that the question was crafted by the reporter and may not have been in the soldier’s own words shouldn’t make it any less credible. Otherwise we should probably question just about everything that comes out of President Bush’s mouth since most of what he says is pre-scripted for him by a White House speechwriter.
"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?"
The question garnered cheers from the troops and proved a major embarrassment to Rumsfeld and the Bush administration.
But now the Pentagon is questioning whether the question was appropriate because it was apparently “planted” by a reporter who was embedded with the troops.
I don’t believe the reporter did anything wrong in this instance and the very fact that the Bush administration is raising this as an issue is simply an effort on their part to skirt the issue and divert attention from their own malfeasance and irresponsible handling of the Iraq war.
It is not like the reporter in question forced the soldier to ask a question that he wasn’t willing to ask himself. In fact, the question was based on concerns expressed by many soldiers that the reporter had come across while being embedded with their unit. The fact that the question garnered applause from the rest of the troops after it was asked bears this out.
Also, the fact that the question was crafted by the reporter and may not have been in the soldier’s own words shouldn’t make it any less credible. Otherwise we should probably question just about everything that comes out of President Bush’s mouth since most of what he says is pre-scripted for him by a White House speechwriter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)