We were talking about movies recently and he described how much he liked The Incredibles. I said I enjoyed it too, but it could not exactly be considered a “great” movie because a great movie is technically brilliant but also says something profound.

    He replied by saying that I simply prefer intense movies where people usually die, and I said I could name 5 profound movies where nobody died.

 Here’s my list:

Rain man

The Apartment

Annie Hall

Being There

Groundhog Day

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

 Raging Bull

Chariots of Fire

 Awakenings

Beautiful Mind

To Kill a Mockingbird

A Face in the Crowd

Amelie

Stand by Me

Whale Rider

To Sir with Love

12 Angry Men

A Raisin in the Sun

My Dinner with Andre

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071022/resnikoff

The most important issue to young people in the 2008 campaign is one that no presidential candidate will discuss. In fact, even touching on this subject is taboo for anyone with aspirations to Congress or the White House. Anyone who has the temerity to mention this political third rail will almost certainly lose the campaign.

The issue is the curtailing of corporate power, and as long as corporations continue to finance major candidates, it will remain unspoken. No one running for office wants to be blacklisted by corporate lobbyists in Washington.

That’s a shame, because this issue is connected to almost every other problem facing America today. As long as corporations have no incentive to avoid polluting, we will continue to poison this planet at an alarming rate, and as long as corporate lobbyists hold an inordinate amount of influence in Washington, there will be no substantive solutions to problems like income inequality or our woefully inadequate healthcare system.

The unchecked power of American corporations does not just affect America, either. It is our corporations that are exploiting developing nations by employing their people at low wages in inhuman working conditions. The environment, obviously, is a global issue. And while some may scoff at the idea of the United States waging war for economic reasons, it is difficult to ignore the mounting evidence that we invaded Iraq, at least in part, to bring profit to American oil companies and defense contractors. What country is next? Iran?

If presidential candidates were willing to treat unchecked corporate power as an actual problem, we might be able to begin considering solutions. At a start, the regulations already in place to curtail corporate power could be enforced again.

More drastic measures need to be taken as well. I would start by changing the legal definition of a corporation. Currently, a corporation is legally defined as a human being, and therefore it possesses all the liberties that go along with being a member of the human race.

That definition is clearly absurd–a corporation is little more than a profit-making machine formed by a loose collective of human beings. It is not entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other amendment of the Constitution for that matter.

Public financing of campaigns is also a central part of reducing corporate power in America. While public financing’s detractors argue that it is fundamentally undemocratic, it will in fact bring America closer to the democratic ideal we purport to hold so dear.

There is much about the current campaign model that is fundamentally undemocratic, but nowhere is that more true than in the field of campaign finance. It is virtually impossible to run for Congress or the White House without becoming a corporate-sponsored candidate, and corporate-sponsored candidates act more on behalf of the corporations that pay to put them in office than the actual human beings that vote for them.

Public campaign finance will fix this by leveling the playing field and ensuring that candidates are selected based on their ability to present their case, not how much money they can raise from GE or Bechtel.

Additional regulation on corporations is also a must. While this includes environmental statutes, something that nobody seems to be discussing is how to regulate corporate America’s human rights abuses abroad. In other words, if Nike is abusing workers in Indonesia, what can we in the United States do to make sure that ceases?

One possible solution is economic sanctions against our own corporations. America is a massive market, and many of the worst violators of human rights are based here, although their factories may be abroad. Why not close off the American market to these companies unless they adhere to some sort of international human rights standard?

One could argue that we have a moral obligation to do something like this, but it is not entirely without its own material rewards. This is a national security issue–to many developing nations, these corporations are the face of the United States, and the more people they abuse around the world, the worse the international perception of us becomes and the more potential terrorists and anti-American sentiment we breed.

In a campaign that is more about fundraising than real issues, unchecked corporate power is the elephant in the room. We cannot rely on the candidates to raise the issue–rather, we must raise awareness among Americans in the hopes that they will force the candidates to acknowledge this central problem in our democracy.

Once upon a time, I was a teenager, and like many other teenagers I wasn’t particularly keen to care about the plight of those less fortunate than myself.

When a homeless person would ask me for money, I’d just claim to have none, or if friends were near I might act tough and tell them to get a job or some other tired refrain that they’ve doubtless heard a million times.

Later, when I was older and shed my bad friends I thought nothing of giving them my spare change, or a buck or two. Eventually the problem about giving homeless people money (that they will use it to buy booze or drugs) was revealed to me and again I stopped with the handouts.

I learned about coupons exchangeable for food, soup kitchens and other things along those lines. I probably should have donated my time to these services, but to me it seemed inescapable logic that if your lowered standards of living have allowed you to omit showering and to live in cardboard boxes, then if you live in a big city, there is food to be found.

Lately I’ve been thinking about it and I’ve come to the conclusion that I was right to begin with.  There is nothing wrong with giving homeless people money.  Sure they will use it to get high, but so what, but thats the closest to happiness most of them will ever reach again.

If for half the price of Starbuck’s coffee I can bring a little can bring a little chemically induced happiness into the world, I’m willing to.

As I walked through the mall I realized there is nothing whatsoever within the mall that anyone would actually need. Sure there is a Target, Sears and Macy’s and these stores offer clothes, cooking gear and what have you, but they conveniently on the outer edge of the mall and offer their own entrances thus removing the need to enter the inner sanctum

The inner sanctum shops offer two types of items: those that appeal to 13 year old gangsta wanna-bes that offer the lasting style and appeal of a fart; and tinselly eyesore decorative things that look like they were made in a sweatshop that employed the children from the “Its a small world” ride at Disney.

In short they are as certain to clog your home with meaningless crap as the food court is to clog your arteries with its tasteless, horrible, un-nutritious food.

Then there are the decorations. The great minds of my mall have decided to grace it with four shapes: square, circle, pizza wedge shaped triangle and a shape that looks like a stealth-bomber (I kid you not). Many flat surfaces (like the chair backs for instance) will have these charming shapes cut into them just so that you can’t forget you were in a mall if that was ever possible.

So as I sat there consuming my deep fat fried corn-dogs that had been switched from pork hot dogs to turkey hot dogs (an effect that reduced my fat and caloric intake by 3% yet destroyed any flavor I might hope to enjoy), I sat thinking. Each decoration was placed with specific intent and contemplation. Who decided then, that I would enjoy a red neon pizza shaped wedge on the ceiling near the pink faux marble pillar? Who boldly gave the thumbs up to lining the upper walls surrounding the food court with plaster stealth bombers painted in a leopard pattern, then spattered with purple? I suddenly wondered if Picasso got high on shrooms, and started firing his masterworks out of a cannon onto glue covered walls.

Malls are a waste of time and anything that you buy there that doesn’t immediately break will surely spend the rest of its life in your garage, closet or  the bottom of a drawer.

Malls are metaphors that represent our society’s abandonment of quality wherever possible.

The reason to be an atheist is simple: there is no scientific evidence that God exists. Everything else is ancillary. If someone is willing to adhere to their beliefs despite a complete lack of scientific evidence, then articles about inconsistencies in the bible, evolution, carbon dating or flying spaghetti monsters are unlikely to convince.

There aren’t any tricks or shortcuts. To change minds we must first open them. Write articles about how the scientific method has reduced erroneous, yet firmly held beliefs, from millions to a handful. Write articles that illustrate how the desire to explain the unknown through “magic” is hardwired into the human brain. Invite theists to reply to what you have to say and give honest answers. Steer clear of vitriol and cleverness. Be consistent, logical and understanding, and strive to create this in others.

Opposition creates opposition and understanding creates understanding.

Stan was a Canadian folk singer of significant talent. His lovely baritone voice worked perfectly with his Celtic sound and songs that explored the plight of common working men (often fishermen and seamen).

Stan’s life ended short at the age of 33. He was in a commercial plane that had to make a forced landing due to a fire. He had made it safely out, but instead of moving to safety stood at the exit and yelled to people to follow his voice in order for them to more easily find their way out of the dense smoke filled cabin. He died of smoke inhalation.

Just earlier that same year, Robert Cusisk, a ship’s chief mate was caught in a horrible storm. He made it out of the boat but was succumbing to the icy waters. As each wave washed over him he didn’t know if he’d have the strength to swim back to the surface again. But then he remembered one of Stan’s songs, Mary Ellen Carter.

And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling bastards lying to you everywhere you go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Rise again, rise again – though your heart it be broken
Or life about to end.
No matter what you’ve lost, be it a home, a love, a friend,
Be like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

He was soon alternating “Rise again, rise again!” and holding his breath as each wave washed over him. That morning the coast guard pulled him to safety.

Cusick wrote a letter to Rogers and was invited what turned out to be his second to last concert before the plane crash.

Not only will giving these variable labels help to create a more cogent form of gamer jargon, but they can also be considered when designing new games.

The descriptions are: Setting, Scale, Plot, Mechanics and Accrual

Setting: Sci-fi, fantasy, Wild West, 19^th century England, Mythic Europe etc,

Scale: Underdog, Gritty, Heroic, God-like.

Underdog (example Call of Cthulhu): In  Underdog games the players are pitted against enemies they are at long odds to vanquish.

Gritty (example – Harn): Gritty games puts the players at an equal standing with the other NPCs in the game world.

Heroic (example – Star Wars, Deadlands): Heroic games give the players a decided edge versus the rest of the game world. Often the players skills are higher and/or they get to use Hero Points to consistently keep an edge.

Godlike (example – Vampire or Amber): Players can just do things that others in the world can’t do. In most cases players in Godlike games will have a competitive peer group like a coterie of Vampires, or the other princes in Amber.

Plot: Open, Closed, or Story

Open (example- Dungeons and Dragons): In games with Open plots the players are placed into a reasonably well defined game world and essentially make their own adventure following GM plot hooks occasionally (or often) along the way.

Closed (example – Amber, Vampire, Star Wars): In games with Closed plots the players are always going to do generally the same thing when they play the game. In Vampire for instance you are always playing on White Wolf’s version of planet Earth, but your character will always be a Vampire that belongs to one of a few clans.

Since the action is more immediate, Closed games need not be well defined.

Story (example – Castle Falkenstein, 7^th Sea): In Story games the world is usually well defined and it could be played as an Open plot but the GM will take firmer control and the campaign will have a story arc.

Mechanics: Basic, Diceless, Added dice and Success count.

Basic (examples – D&D, Ars Magica and Harn): Stat + Skill + a die roll has to equal a difficulty assigned by the GM for you to succeed. Percentage based systems are also Basic.

Basic systems lack gimmicky mechanics but their strength is the degree to how simple or detailed an aspect of the system can be. In Harn for instance task resolution is solved with a single percentile roll vs. your skill, but combat is solved with a complex attack vs. defense matrix that offers 16 possible results to every pass of the blade based on the success, failure, critical success and critical failure of either combatant.

When designing a Basic system its important to balance the numeric range of skills vs. the numeric range of the die (or dice) rolled.
Dungeons and Dragons (or D&D) is an example where this was not looked at. The point spread between someone that is great and someone that is mediocre is about 6 points, but the die roll spread is 20 points so have a skill edge vs. somebody doesn’t ever really mean a whole lot unless its big.

Diceless (example -Amber): The GM weighs all the relevant factors and decides if you succeed.

The strength of this method is that the GM can weigh different factors more heavily according to the mood he is trying to set. Also without a system to get into the way not only is role-play easier but planning tactics and descriptions which add more to the game are used more often.

Diceless games work best when the power levels of of the PCs and NPC are massively tiered.

Added dice (example- Star Wars the RPG, West End games version): Success is determined by rolling a number of dice (that represent stats and skills) and adding them together vs. a difficulty set by the GM.

The problem with this system is that additional dice add varying amounts to an expected total. If you have 2d and raise it to 3d, you are adding 50%. But if you have 10d raise it to 11d you are only adding 10%

Added dice systems work well if you want your players to have an edge against “goon” type NPCs but not an insurmountable one.
Hit or Miss (example – most White Wolf games): For task resolution multiple dice are rolled, and each die equals a success or not based on whether it’s shown value is above a certain number.

Success count (example – Vampire): Success is determined by rolling a certain number of dice and each die that is sufficiently high counts as one level of success.

Success count offers a good simple math-less dice rolling system but is erratic in its results. Also once you get to roll a certain number of dice you chance of getting at least one

The weakness of this system is that success is virtually guaranteed when rolling even a small number of dice. So the value of one success has to be redefined, or you have to take it for granted that every task is incredibly hard to completely fail at.

Accrual is defined as anything that makes the PC more likely to succeed at his tasks within the game, be it permanently or temporarily. Categorizing Accrual isn’t impprtant to understanding a game, but understanding it is important when designing a game as it has a significant impact on the feel of the game and player behavior.

The types of Accrual are: XP, Hero points, items and progression.

XP: Most games include some form or another of XP. XP gives you points to raise attributes with or gives you points towards a level, which generally raises your ability at everything.

Hero points (example – Deadlands chips): Hero points generally give you temporary power to re-roll skill rolls, activate powers or stave off wounds. They are rewarded often at the end of each scene within the game.

Items (example – magic items): Items are a suitable reward when you want to give something more significant that XP and more permanent than hero points.

Progression is defined as “anything that increases your ability to succeed at the game that is not applied to the games mechanics.” Some examples would include: knowledge, prestige and political or military power.

In terms of classifying types of Progression, there’s not a lot of point. But when designing a game it is quite important to think of the avenues players will have to take to gain power because this will set the tone of the game.

One example of flawed Progression though a great game nonetheless is Ars Magica. In Ars Magica, the acquisition of magic substitutes, replaces or cancels the need for other forms of progression. One of the best ways to acquire magic is to do a magical lab. Unfortunately doing a magic lab is nothing more interesting than trying to ask what kind of spells you can create within a level range you can attain in a certain number of seasons. Its boring, but my players want to do nothing but this if they could.

Based on these descriptors you can create a strong understanding of a game just by giving it a few labels.

D&D: Fantasy, Heroic, Open, Basic.

Vampire: Modern, Godlike, Closed, Success count.

Call of Cthulhu: 1920’s America, Underdog, Closed, Basic.

Classic Star Wars: Star Wars universe, Heroic, Closed, Added dice.

A biopic can use two different techniques in covering its subject matter. The first is a straightforward narrative, usually chronological in nature like Gandhi or Pride of the Yankees.

The second uses metaphor or other methods to give you a more intimate glimpse at the subject’s life as seen in Ed Wood or Shakespeare in Love

Kinsey switches back and forth between both methods and loses pacing at each step. 

The movie’s central theme is that of Alfred Kinsey’s enormous contribution to society through his study and dissemination of knowledge regarding sexual habits and desires of human beings.  The movie also has a secondary theme regarding the sacrifices that a person devoted to science must make in his personal life.

To the first theme I would have preferred a greater perspective on the world away from Kinsey and his colleagues.  There are of course a generous number of ubiquitous shots of shock and outrage to what Kinsey is doing, but his own world seems filled with people that rarely if ever question what they are doing.  Also if the film had done more to evoke the 1950s it might have produced the same desired effect.

The second theme works splendidly and the three main characters – Liam Neeson as Kinsey, Laura Linney as his wife and Peter Saarsgard as his friend and fellow researcher – turned in performances worthy of acclaim and the theme of sacrifice was felt deeply even though it was barely discussed.

Sadly the movie was also weighed down by pointless introspection into his childhood and Kinseys significant but boring study of gall wasps.  I suppose the writer felt the need to include these even though they virtually nothing for me.

Kinsey is unabashed in its examination of sex, but is usually viewed through a scholarly lens.  This is not a film for youngsters.

Kinsey is slow but entertaining nonetheless if you catch it playing on some cable channel you probably won’t be disappointed.  If you are looking for a good movie, even another biopic there are better choices.

Rating: C+

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)–the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that’s a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

-Ian Johnston

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

Director William Friedkin’s direction is both gritty, somber and exhilarating at all the right times and Gene Hackman puts in what may be the best performance of his career as the irascible protagonist Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle. Roy Scheider plays Doyle’s partner “Buddy” Russo with his usual aplomb and intensity.

The cinematography was also quite good, the grittiness of New York city was well realized.

With the direction and acting top notch what’s not to like? A plot as simple and dated as Red Riding hood, and what is undoubtedly the worst ending of any film to win an Oscar.

Police dramas have moved so far beyond the simplicity of this film that every moment was utterly predictable and often boring. I felt like I was watching a well executed episode of TJ Hooker. Indeed, watching Shatner hang onto a car hood for 20 minutes or so probably would have improved my viewing experience.

The ending is so bad that it actually leaves an action scene unresolved and cuts to a narrator describing everyone’s fate.

The French Connection is worth seeing if you can endure the low points. The acting, direction and action scenes are worth the view.

Grade: C+