Google Calendar

My wife and I use Google Calendar to coordinate our events and activities with one another. It started primarily when I was on one coast and she was on the other, as it was a simple calendar option that we could both access at all times and use to see what the other was doing or had planned.

One thing that I haven't seen on any electronic calendar, but that I would love to see incorporated into Google Calendars, is a "diary" function. Let's face it, most of use write things into calendar entries that are not activities or things to do lists. We often will put a quick summation of something wonderful that happened, or mundane things like the reps and sets we did for our workout that day, or the mileage on our walk/run, or even a quick note to our loved ones. Yet most electronic calendars assume we only use them for meetings, lists, and events/activities.

I see it working like this:

Right now, when you click on the day, you get the option of entering a task or event for a specific time. I'd like to see a window display asking if I want to enter an activity or make a diary entry. If I select Activity (or some other generic word for event, task, etc.), the Google Calendar works exactly as it does now, allowing me to give the event a title and change where it is, the time of the event, etc. However, if I select Diary (or similar word, like Notes), then a page displays with today's full date at the top and a "lined" page. This page is, in essence, an RTF Word Document file, or similar, into which I can enter anything I like, using standard RTF formatting (or html formatting) for bold, underlined, bullets, lists, etc. When I'm done and I save the diary entry, the page closes and a diary entry appears at the bottom of the calendar's day box for that day. Now, the day's box shows me any events on my calendar and shows me there is a diary entry, which I can reopen and add to whenever I want.

I have health concerns. I like to keep track of them, when they happen, and report them to my doctor during my visits. Using a diary function on the calendar would be a simple, easy way to accommodate this need. Plus, the Google Calendar is search-able, so I could find all instances of this between the last visit and the current one. Or, when I do exercise, it would be nice to put the reps, time, weights, etc. involved for that day. Or those who keep a food journal -- how easy would it be to simply type it into the calendar where you can track it day-to-day?

With the way I see the majority of people use their paper calendars, it surprises me that someone hasn't thought to do this already. With Google's desire to connect everything we do, it is doubly surprising that their calendar does not have this feature. If you know of an online calendar that has this feature, feel free to Comment and point it out to me.

Anonymity and You

There have been recent articles about situations in which people did something "anonymously," were found out, and reaped huge consequences from it. In one noted case, an 11 year old girl posted an acidic, obscenity-filled rebuttal to rumors she was dating the lead singer of a band. People on the web trolling site 4chan found out her real name, phone number, and address, and en masse decided to make the girl's life a living hell. She is now banned for a time from any internet activity and she is in police protective custody. The police are building a case against some of the 4chan people as it appears they may have broken the law in their relentless pursuit of this girl. Or the teacher who was fired for posting comments about a student, even though she didn't name the student directly. There are even articles that are now poking some fun at the issues.

As the humorous article points out, many of us choose anonymity not because we're criminals, but to hide simple embarrassments or to show either positive or negative support for things that matter to us, but for which we might get "flamed." I call this blog "John's Omniverse" because the name John is ubiquitous (hell, unidentified prostitution users and toilets are both called John, that's how prevalent the name is) and I don't have my real name or anything else associated with it. This small layer of anonymity allows me to post political, religious, and social commentary in a way that gives me plausible deniability should I need it. Do I think I'm truly anonymous? Of course not. There are many clues to who I am. Blogger and Google both have access to my data, and "know" who I am. But to the casual reader, I could be the guy next door, or someone on the other side of the planet.

Most sites have you sign in with your real name and create your ID. Many sites you are granted permission to use after making a purchase from the site owner, so they have your credit card name on file. All sites have the means to monitor the IP address you use to enter the site. So, while the sites have access to data that can be used to identify you, they do not adequately police the blogs, boards, or what-have-you that they host, and don't warn or stop trollers from trolling. While I think that the RealID solution presented in the Cracked article is one way to go, shouldn't the real first step be enforcing the rules in the first place?

In both of the Super Hero MMORPGs that I play, every time you want to play the game, but before you can actually enter it, you have to accept the game's EULA (End User Licensing Agreement). Both EULAs clearly state that you cannot use names and/or likenesses of owned or copyrighted characters. Yet I cannot move around any zone in either game without seeing an Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Wolverine, Rogue, Batman,  Superman, or another licensed/owned/copyrighted character "clone." Matter of fact, after each of the big comic book movies is released, for the next 2-4 weeks the games are filled with clone after clone of those characters in the movie. These same people who accepted the EULA, and then broke the rules they just accepted, get all pissy when someone inevitably reports them to the GMs and their character gets "generic-ed." They come crying to the forum boards with woe-is-me stories about it when they argue with the GMs and get a 1-3 day ban from playing. I have no sympathy-- they broke the rules and they got caught, deal with it.

America literally has thousands of gun laws in every state and federally. There is quite literally no situation you can think of that involves ownership rights, purchasing, resale, and/or using guns that there isn't a law already in existence to cover. Yet people want more gun laws. The problem with all those existing gun laws and any new ones people insist on having is:

1. Criminals don't follow the rules.
2. The rules are hard to enforce.
3. There aren't enough government employees (i.e., cops, feds, et al) to enforce the existing laws 100%.

Anonymity does allow certain people to feel free to do as they please, and anonymity is the haven for those who wish to perform criminal activities. Some will stop their bad behavior if they have to use their real name and/or address. But many won't stop because they simply do not fear retribution. If those who moderate these sites do so quickly, efficiently, and to the fullest extent, many internet trolls will be found, banned, and will lose the right to post their hate speech. But, just as with game GMs looking for clones and law enforcement officers looking for illegal guns, there are far too few moderators to adequately handle the rules/laws already in place.

There are some advantages to a RealID program, however. If you have your actual name attached to anything you say online, people will choose not to say as much online for fear of reprisals. As my mother once said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

Christopher Nolan's Decisions

I am a fan of Christopher Nolan. I have enjoyed pretty much all of his movies and I expect a certain amount of quality and care if he's involved with a picture. However, I'm not going to say everything he does is gold; I have reasons for my opinions and I'm willing to back them up. What I respect most about Nolan's film-making are his choices as a director.

A director can make or break a script with poor decisions on actors, mood, music, and editing; a movie with the advice he gives his actors; and a film with his oversight of the editing process or with his choices for cinematography. So far, in every film he's made, Nolan's choices always seem like the right ones.

When he wanted to reboot and restart the Batman franchise, he went out of his way to tell studio bosses that he was going to use CGI effects as minimally as possible. He wanted to use predominantly all real effects with real stunt men. He felt that doing so would ground the character in the world and make the actions seem that much more real to the audiences. Studio bosses hemmed and hawed for a while, and then said okay. The results are Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, both critically lauded and audience approved.

In Insomnia, Nolan worked with some heavy-weight hitters for the first time in Pacino, Williams, and Swank. He dialed down Pacino's and Williams' usually over-the-top performances to something subtle. He used color to and photography to help the picture form the surreal world of Pacino's cop's dream-like world view due to his lack of sleep.

Memento has become a classic film noir-esque movie with audiences over the years. Nolan aided the audience to understand the mentally challenged lead's circumstance by using the "gimmick" of telling the story out of order (almost in reverse). From many other directors, this gimmick would feel cheesy. Yet Nolan manages to keep the choice fresh from beginning to end with his editing of where the story breaks and rewinds, how much he reveals about each character during each scene, and the small bits of humor and drama that are in each beat of the film.

In The Prestige, Nolan makes what is likely his most "standard" directorial choices. Yet, that choice in itself has surprising results, as the story being told is one of the meanest, nastiest on screen feuds between characters you've ever witnessed. By dialing down the gimmicks and the other choices he could have made to a more standard approach, he allows the acting of Jackman and Bale to expand and the story of their bitter rivalry to breath. Even with the lush pallet, sweeping camera shots and intimate close-ups, the audience becomes mesmerized by the two leads' slow decent into hatred and revenge, and, likely, wind up hating both by the film's final twist and turn.

With a film like Inception, most directors would have been hot to use 3D technology (or post production) to make the world pop. They would have filled the frame with more and more effects as the world of the dreams grew more complex. Again, Nolan makes the spot-on choice not to use 3D, leaving room for the story and the characters to be the main focus. There is a lot going on in this world, so you need time to pick it up, learn it, and then be amazed by it and the characters who inhabit this world. 3D would just slow that process down and get in the way of the story-telling. However, for this film, Nolan did extensively use CGI effects. Unlike most films with CGI, however, Inception doesn't beat you over the head with it. Time and care was taken to make every effect fit into the world and seem like a part of it.

In the final battle in Lord of the Rings: Return of the King I was very much aware that most of the creatures, people, and scenery on the screen were CGI. In Inception I wasn't taken out of the moment by this. For the most part, only the scenes around the actors were CGI, and time and care were taken to get the lighting and textures correct to fool the audiences' eye into believing what the actors are in and doing. Many of these scenes are enhanced by real-world effects to help "sell" the CGI as much as possible. For example, when Paris folds up on itself, you have real actors standing on real streets of Paris, with shots of other real streets of Paris. Only the "edges" of the shots, where the folding occurs, is an actually CGI effect; the rest is all real-world effect and shots. Once again, Nolan makes the right choices, even if they are not the easy choices, to sell the effects, sell the story, and sell the movie to the audience.

Nolan is now working on the story and pre-production for the next (and possibly final) Batman film in his stewardship. He is also working on the next Superman movie as an advisor and executive producer. My belief is that, yet again, Nolan will make the right choices to bring the one down-and-dirty, street-level character and the God among men, messianic, other-worldly alien to the screen for audiences. I imagine the next Batman will continue using predominantly real-world effects and a strong cast to push the idea of vigilante as hero. I am willing to bet that Superman will have a lot of CGI effects to back-up the unimaginable power that character has; but with Nolan overseeing things, I have a feeling they will blend well and won't feel forced or like CGI for CGI's sake (like, say, in the three Star Wars prequels).

I look forward to following this director's career in whatever direction he goes.

A New Look

I decided to try a new look. I think the results show the theme I'm going for more clearly than previous designs. I had to tweak it a bit -- the original template has a lot of orange lettering involved. It looked good, but I found it to be a little hard on the eyes with the dark background. So I went for something blue that would, hopefully, be easier on the eyes against the background. I may tweak some more before I'm through, but I like this template a lot so far.

Update: Some of the orange has returned. And I tweaked the post backgrounds so they were a bit more readable. I think I'm going to like this new template.

Media Context

I would hire Shirley Sherrod in a moment. A woman who admits to having preconceived notions and prejudices, but then learned to overcome them? A woman who speaks honestly and openly about race relations and the need to move past them? A woman who has grown and changed and become a better person through her experiences? I'd hire her in an instant!

But, politics being what they are today, instead we get a much-edited, out-of-context clip that seems to show Ms. Sherrod as a racist and getting cheered by the NAACP for it. The Tea Party should be ashamed for it. And Fox News should be even more ashamed for picking it up, doing no research or fact-checking at all, and running with the story without verification.

I feel bad that Shirley Sherrod had to go through this episode in her life. It is too bad that her bosses and the federal government were lied to by this news channel (and the Tea Party) and also didn't do any fact-checking before asking for her resignation.

This is the third Fox News "gaffe" of this type in recent memory. First, they cut footage from a different rally into the footage of the Tea Party rally to make it seem like more than the about 100 people showed up. They didn't even do a good job with it, as the old footage spliced in showed fall colors on the trees and people in coats, while the Tea Party rally was held in late spring. After being called on the carpet, Fox News' response was basically, "We didn't think anyone would notice or care."

Then they edited one of President Obama's speeches (at West Point) to make it seem like he was not getting support from the audience or claps/cheers with what he was saying. They even were found to have repositioned some of President's comments and gestures to make it look even worse for him (like he was annoyed at the lack of clapping/cheering). When nearly every other news media jumped on them for this out of context, biased, and downright wrong video and the segments they did supporting it, Fox News' response was to say it was simply an "editorial decision." Misrepresenting the news is NOT an editorial decision, it is slander/libel (depending on if it is spoken or written).

I'm not supposing that the left is without blame. However, so far, I haven't seen any indications of MSNBC or CNN, two of the supposed left bastion, getting caught misrepresenting facts, editing video to show things in a more positive or negative light, or re-editing video to be out of sequence or context. I don't see articles about how they have taken the President's comments out of context and misrepresented what he said. I haven't seen reports of them taking the Tea Party speeches and using them out of context to misrepresent what was said or done.

With these three recent incidences being so publicly rebuked, along with all their previous issues, I have a hard time understanding why so many people still get their news from Fox News. If I found any one source of my news to be purposefully and intentionally misleading its audience in these ways, I would take them off of my list of news sites. Or course, I'm one of those people who reads the left, the right, and a few middle-of-the-road sources, and then makes up my own mind (guessing that the truth is likely somewhere in the middle of all the rhetoric). I guess, if I only watched Fox News, I likely wouldn't even know they are lying to me regularly.

I was always taught that when the chips are down is when you need to be the most honest, the most forthright, and above reproach. It lends credence to your side and is more persuasive than lying or obfuscating things. As the Right is currently "down," now would be the time for a right-leaning news agency to follow that advice. So, it is too bad that Fox News doesn't have that same approach with its journalistic standards. I'm fine with them leaning right and wanting right-wing politics to succeed. But they need to show the successes and failures of both political sides honestly -- that will bring more viewers, more rewards, and more ad dollars in the end than the shoddy journalism they seem to be practicing now.

Obama is the Next Carter?

Many Presidential scholars consider Jimmy Carter one of the smartest people to have ever been in the office of the President for our country. He is praised for his compassion and the way he handled monumental tasks and problems that occurred just prior to and during his Presidency. Yet he is considered a "failure" for the most part by the majority of Americans and was only given one term due to those perceived "failures."

Carter was a little-known Democratic candidate when he decided to run for office. His position as an "outsider" and an agent of change helped to push him quickly to the top of the polls for the Democrats and to the eventual win over Ford for the office.

The scholars point out that many of Carter's initiatives and plans started bearing fruit at the very tail end of his Presidency and into Reagan's first term in office, but it is Reagan who gets the credit for those successes. They mention that NO one who was in office during those four years likely could have done a better job handling the oil/energy crisis, the recession and inflation, the conflict in the Middle East, and the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan.

Sound familiar?

Now, we have Obama in office. Like Carter, he comes in with an oil/energy crisis to deal with, a recession and the possibility of run-away inflation, a conflict in the Middle East, and armed conflict in Afghanistan. He is working hard to make sure inflation doesn't kill the already bad economy by artificially keeping interest rates low and creating work projects. He is trying to improve the economy by regulating banking and convincing Americans to spend money on Americans. He is trying to curb American oil dependence on the Middle East and encourage more research on alternative energy sources. He is trying to figure out a more peaceful solution to the Middle East. He is left with Americans being engaged in an unpopular war in a foreign land and having to clean up the mess of an armed conflict in Afghanistan.

So, basically, we have Obama nearly exactly reliving Carter's Presidency. And I'm getting the not-so-subtle feeling that, like Carter, Obama's changes won't really bear fruit for another year or so but, by then, it will be too late and the people will want anyone else in the office, regardless of party. Whomever wins the next election will then take credit for the improved economy (even though it started to improve before he was elected) and other initiatives that Obama has and will put in place, and will be seen as a savior and a great leader by Americans.

I hope I'm wrong. But history is suggesting I'm not. With luck, our next President will be as smart and successful as Reagan was at a) not touching his predecessor's plans so they keep working, b) implementing new plans that keep the old ball rolling for a good long time, c) making Americans believe in themselves and the country again, and d) improving the country's standing among the world's leaders once again.

If this all comes to pass, I hope that Obama can go on to be as successful as Carter outside the office. Carter's humanitarian efforts are considered some of the best post-Presidency work of any person to hold the office. Some would argue he is the most successful former President to ever hold the office.

LeBron James

I knew that whatever choice "King" James made except for staying in Cleveland, he would be vilified for. I was not prepared for the vitriol I am seeing today from sports writers and fans, however.

James has proven that he is no Jordan. Hell, he's proven once and for all that he's no Kobe! For all the incredible talent LeBron has, he simply does not have the competitive fire that the great superstars have.

On top of this, James has proven repeatedly that he is immature. Gee, do you think that may come from having skipped college and the opportunity to get some good life lessons learned there? James' overall comments basically broke down to "I can't do it myself" and "I need others to pick up my slack" and "I am too immature to do it on my own." Which, frankly, a lot of us who watch the NBA already had figured out.

I've been wondering about James most specifically since he lost to Orlando and refused to shake hands and congratulate them on the victory a few seasons ago. Sure, there were inklings before that, but that moment solidified my questions about the "King." That is sportsmanship 101. No matter how high your competitive fire, you congratulate the victor. Had James been raised with humility and had he gone to college, he would have learned that lesson.

The last two post seasons has seen James literally quit on his team. I don't know any other way of saying it. If you watched the games in question, I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion. When Jordan, Bird, Thomas, Magic and other superstars have had "off" nights, they work harder for their team. They switch gears from being offensive-minded to defensive-minded. They become a facilitator but don't pass up the open shot. In those games, James just stopped playing. His defense became comical, his offense just kept getting worse, and he stopped playing team basketball.

Kobe was accused of shutting it down and not playing hard during the final season Shaq was with the Lakers in 2004. It would be difficult to argue that Kobe did it more than that one time. He got raked over the coals for it, in both national and regional sports media. Yet James has done it numerous times and has barely gotten a hand slap for his behavior. Kobe came back from that harder, leaner, hungrier to prove his critics wrong. James came back from his experience with shutting it down weaker, less willing to work, and more likely to do it again (and he did).

During the Cavs' playoff series against Orlando, James was leading the charge with dancing, high-fives, and singing on the sidelines. I told my wife that Orlando wasn't going to like that and would at least make them work for their wins from that point on... and it would be interesting to see what would happen when the Cavs didn't have so much to dance, sing, and high-five over. Sure enough, Orlando started winning and the smiles and singing and dancing went away... and so did James' game. When his team needed him to lead them, to keep them loose and hungry for a victory, he became petulant and dismissive. He argued with his coach and didn't run the plays called. He stopped playing defense and going after rebounds. And his team lost.

So, now, James has what he says he wants. His huge ego will need to shrink a bit in order to fit into the house that Wade built. He will have to see if he can get it done with one champion (Wade) and a guy who has only sniffed the playoffs twice and never won there (Bosh), because the rest of the team will be decimated in order to fit those three maximum contracts in the building. And now he will be hated by every other team in the league, but most especially by Cleveland.

Most importantly for James, though, is that he will have clutch performers around him to take up his slack when he just can't do it because his will to win is just not there.

Passport Fees and Canada

Fees for US Passports are going up by a large amount. While it is true that new technology and the addition of a lot of people to work for the State Dept to help process and review passport requests caused an increase in costs, I have severe doubts on those costs equating with an across the board 35% increase. Some passport-related items, which have always been free services, are going up by large amounts (in one case, from free to $450!).

In general, I have no issue with raising costs. However, the requirement for passports hurts our closest ally, Canada, and those states that rely on Canadians and Americans crossing the border regularly (like New York, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, et al).

I know from personal experience that Canada does an excellent job patrolling and protecting its borders. Canada is concerned with terrorism to a similar degree as America, and is vigilant in scrutinizing those that come in and those who might sneak in to its country. The people recognize that as America goes, so goes Canada in many regards, so they are mindful of keeping very good relations with their southerly neighbor.

Having such restrictive rules between Canada and America is a mistake, especially when a great deal of exports and imports cross-pollinate between the two countries (America, for example, gets a huge portion of its energy, wood, diamonds, and gas/oil from Canada, Canada gets a large amount of consumer goods from America). These two nations need each other and should be fostering cooperation and anti-antagonistic approaches to border crossing, imports/exports, and military needs.

In some regards, I think that America and Canada need to sign treaties to become one nation. Then, over the next decade or so afterward, America could incorporate many of the positive attributes of Canada's society (social health care, better banking regulations, etc.) while Canada would benefit from unlimited access to American consumerism, a larger pool of workers, and a much bigger military structure to help it with its borders. However, Canadians would never go for that; they are a proud people, and rightfully so.

Since that won't happen, America needs to step back, take a deep breath, and think of ways to allow Canada to do its job, relax restrictions between the two borders, and work WITH Canada on security and other issues rather than constantly pissing off its northerly neighbor. There is no need for the antagonism with this close ally. And, if American would stop fighting with them, it would have more time, money, and energy to fight battles that need fighting, like against the drug barons in Mexico, the continuing crusade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and against a still stagnant economy.

EarthDawn Versus D&D 4th Edition

Background: I played my first Dungeons and Dragons adventure in 1978 with my friend Dennis and his brother and friends. I've played, off and on but mostly on, since then. I have played some other systems along the way, including genres outside of the Fantasy setting, but always returning to the granddaddy of them all at some point.

My SoCal gaming group really enjoyed EarthDawn (ED), a game (at the time) released by FASA Corp. We enjoyed the world, the variety and mix of playable classes and races, and the multiple dice aspect and rerolling of the game system. One other nice aspect was that mages and non-mages both remained effective and useful into higher levels.

At the time, Dungeons and Dragons (DnD) was in second edition, and was still a bit cumbersome to play and learn for new players, had a lot of "splat" books for classes and races to help you min/max your character. Soon, DnD 3.0 and then 3.5 came out, and we switched back to those, as the new rule set clarified and simplified a lot of what our gaming group didn't like about DnD. However, there still were many and frequent discussions over how a certain rule should be used or interpreted, because the editing on the books was never great and they used ambiguous terminology and examples.

Wizards of the Coast released DnD 4th Edition. The aim of this edition was to simplify some rules, alleviate a lot of the detritus that had built up around certain classes, races, and styles of play, and try to minimize the overt dominance of mage classes at higher levels in favor of keeping all classes viable through all levels.

I have now both played and DMed DnD 4e for almost two years. And what I find interesting is just how much of the setting and rules that DnD 4e has taken from ED.

Area	DnD 4e	ED
Point of Light setting?	X	X
Spellcasters can cast all the time?	X (matrix)	X (at-wills)
All characters powered by magic?	X	X
All tests must equal/exceed difficulty number?	X	X
Specific rules always override general rules?	X	X
Passive "spot" ability?	X(Passive Perception/Insight)	X (Perception)
Hero points?	X (Action points)	X (Karma)
Multiple dice used?	O (many powers give multiple damage dice)	X (step system)
Extreme success in battle?	X (Criticals)	X (Armor defeating)
All characters can heal?	X(2nd Wind/healing surges)	X (recovery tests)

While I wont list them, there are many rules similarities in the two systems now, as well. Both systems make it harder to multi-class, for example, as the Discipline/Class you choose is something of an embodiment to how your character relates to the world through his magic, so it is harder to learn abilities from other Discipline/Classes. DnD 4e has the advantage here, though, as it does allow you to "dip" into another class and get a couple of magical abilities from them, making your character more generally useful to a party at the cost of a little specialization.

One area I'm disappointed 4e didn't copy is the ED standard of having a test to hit a character and then a test to damage the character. By this I mean that in ED you have to roll to see if you land a blow with your weapon, spell, or social interaction first, usually pitted against a character's Dexterity. And then, if you happen to hit, the character's Armor absorbs some of the damage. This system better represents the different decisions players may make in wanting a "light, fast, hardly hit" character versus a "meat shield, tanker" type character. In ED, you can buy high Dexterity and light armor and feats and talents all designed around not being hit at all. However, due to the limited protection light armor provides, if you are hit, nearly all of the damage gets through to you. Or you can buy a high strength so you can handle wearing extremely tough, durable armor. Your dexterity is low due to the weight of the armor, so things hit you more often, but it takes a high roll or an armor-defeating hit in order to get any of that damage past the armor and to the character.

DnD decided to stick with the more generic Armor Class, where AC accounts for both your ability to dodge and withstand damage. It also ties Hit Points more closely into your character's ability to take damage and continue functioning, with no standard for extreme damage or long-term inability due to combat. ED has Wounds as well as Hit Points. Wounds represent extreme or long-term damage that limits a character's ability to do something. The first Wound is "free" but each subsequent Wound gives the character a cumulative -1 to just about everything they do.

Another aspect that I like in both is that they have taken a lot of the rules for roleplaying OUT of the game. Much of the "fluff" has been eliminated or minimized. In this way, you can play a, say, dwarf, any way you want to. You are not locked into the standard DnD concept of greedy dwarves who distrust elves and covet gold and gems. Or bearded dwarf females (ugh!).

While ED has a good, strong back story of events, and gives some elements about the races, the rules do tell you as a player to use those aspects you find fun and ignore the rest, if you choose.

4e also borrowed a concept from ED in magic items. In ED you could get threaded items which grew and became more powerful with your character over time, and minor threaded items and minor magic items were fairly common and available. While that concept did not make it into 4e, it has revamped the way magic weapons are powered so that they can tie into character concepts, they can empower the character with new abilities and/or increase existing abilities, and they are cheaper and easier to acquire and/or transfer the magic to a different weapon, making it easier for players to keep enchantments but use them on weapons that are more "in concept" for their characters.

On many other comparison blogs they discuss how 4e is "more like an MMORPG." This statement I simply don't understand; the concepts that MMORPGs use come directly from DnD and its related games, not the other way around. While they may not have explicitly stated it in previous editions, the concept of having a tank/defender/meat shield up front to take the damage and keep things occupied, a striker/scrapper/blaster to do melee or ranged damage, a leader/support/healer to buff the party, and a controller/crowd control/debuffer to hinder the opponents is the classic "standard" setup for any party in any RPG. I find this amusing as every edition of DnD from the brown paper covered through today has always recommended the party consists of a Fighter (Defender), Rogue (Striker), Cleric (Leader), and Wizard (Controller). And, by their very nature, most classes fit into one of those roles predominantly. And, like other editions, most classes have secondary roles they are good at, too. A Fighter can be a decent Striker, for example, and a Cleric can fit into either Controller or Defender roles with grace.

Both ED and 4e have rules that allow characters to overcome damage fairly easily. This is part of the concept of the characters all being "heroes" and part of the upper 1% of the population that have these magical abilities. In ED, the Recovery Test is limited by the character's Toughness, and may be done after an hour post-combat and after 1 minute of rest and concentration. Whatever you roll is subtracted from your current damage. In 4e, you have a number of Healing Surges you can do per day, based on your class, race, and/or Constitution. You have one special Surge you can do during an encounter, called a Second Wind. Either way, recovery tests and healing surges minimize the need for healing magic and allow the characters to do more in a day instead of the old style of "fight-rest for 8 hours-heal-fight-rest for 8 hours-heal" routine that frequently took up a lot of game time in previous editions of DnD. In either system, I find it is still ridiculously easy to kill characters, overwhelm them, and make them use these precious resources. Healing magic is still needed and much gold is still spent on healing potions.

The one thing I miss the most from ED is the ability to roll multiple dice and the ability to reroll maxed dice. There was always that tinge of "a first level windling could kill a dragon with one blow" lurking in the background that made for some extra excitement while playing. Many of my favorite stories from ED involve lucky or unlucky times when the players or the DM got maxes, allowing for extraordinary results on challenges and tests. Even with all the changes that were made, DnD 4e just isn't designed for that type of randomness, so it was not included.

4e has become a lot like ED in how it is played. It resolves many of the rules issues with previous editions, incorporates some good concepts from other game systems (like ED) to keep people playing and doing heroic things, and allows for more variations to many aspects of a game world where things had become somewhat rote. ED (now provided by Redbrick Limited) continues to be a fun game system that has some core concepts I really enjoy, namely in how it handles armor class/hitting and its use of multiple dice and rerolling maxes. You should play whatever RPG you enjoy most.

Reinventing the Wheel

I believe that President Obama is trying to make America a better place. I think that President Bush tried to do what was right for America (in my estimation, failing more often than succeeding, but still). However, in both cases, and with the Congress in general, they seem to be adamant about reinventing the wheel rather than seeing the wheels already made and picking one or two to serve as a model for what will work in America.

Take health care. There are, literally, a dozen or more examples of universal health care that American leadership could copy. Each of these examples has been proven over many years of successful use. We could send experts to Japan, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Hawaii (yes, it has had a form of universal health care since the '50s which works great), and other nations, learn what works and what doesn't, and implement a plan based on those countries with a proven track record. Easy, right? No, instead we are going our own way, recreating the wheel in a hodge-podge of ideas that involve kick-backs and concessions to insurance companies and specific state lobbies. It will likely fail not because it is a bad idea but because it was poorly implemented.

Take banking reform. A number of banking systems were barely affected by the recent economic crash. Why not model the changes to the American system after the stable and secure systems of these nations (Canada, for example, et al) rather than making it up as we go and being reactionary to what happened, rather than proactive to making the system safe and secure? So far, at least, it looks like the changes being implemented aren't doomed to failure; I'm just not sure they will make the system safe and secure against the next threat to the economy.

Energy is another example where America could take notes from the rest of the world. Germany and Canada, for example, have multiple, much safer nuclear power plants using deuterium as their water source and which don't create the same weapons-grade cake that standard nuclear plants do. These plants have a great track-record and provide power to millions cheaply and efficiently. In America's quests to be energy independent, why aren't they looking at these types of power plants?

America has always been a leader to the world. However, in some areas, other nations have the proven track record and have discovered the efficiencies that America has not needed until recently. It would make the most sense if the country would take the best ideas around the world and implement those, rather than spending years and millions (billions?) to reinvent what already works.

Feeling a Little Dumb

I got a letter from the IRS saying I forgot to sign my tax return this year. Since I normally file online, but can't any more due to location, it is not all that surprising that I forgot a silly little step like that.

However, the letter informing me of that issue specifically says that I had to return the signed declaration within 20 days of the date of the letter. If I lived in America and, therefore, didn't use the entire system that caused me to forget to sign my return in the first place, I could have accomplished that. But I live in Canada now; I received the letter after the 20 days had elapsed.

For as nice a country as Canada is, there are a few areas of failing, one of which is the postal service. For as much as Americans complain about the post office, it still is one of the world's largest and most efficient companies, moving tons of mailing quickly around the nation. Canada's postal service is not nearly as big, efficient, or fast. It doesn't deliver on Saturdays, Sundays, most holidays, and when it feels like it (for example, if the carrier feels the snow is too bad during the winter, they simply don't deliver to that area that day).

As an inadvertent test, my wife and I have sent items to the same location (my mom's house) from both Calais, ME (just across the border) and from our house in Canada. Those sent from Calais usually take two to three days to reach its destination on the other side of the country. Those sent from here average about 13-15 days.

I called the IRS this morning and, luckily, I can simply send in the signed declaration without issue (I neither owe nor am owed money), so they just want the declaration to attach to my return. So we put it in the mail today for its at least two week journey to Texas this morning.

Good luck, mail, good luck!

750 And Counting...

The first time I made aeblesciver, I used a traditional recipe, cut up an actual apple and put chunks in, and then fiddled around trying to turn them using forks.

This morning I did it the easy American style-- Bisquick pancake mix, leftover homemade applesauce, and fondue forks.

Wow, what a difference.

My wife and I couldn't taste too much difference in the sciver produced, they were simpler and faster to make, and the fondue forks allowed me to manipulate the cooking cake much more easily. Using the applesauce was actually much nicer than chunks of apple, as it was softer and easier to bite into but you still got the sweet, apple-y flavor.

Things to note:

• The outside of the sciver cooks much faster with this recipe, so either reduce heat or stand very careful watch. If you don't, you'll have tougher outsides and uncooked, runny insides. On the original recipe mix I made before, I had the oven at a 4 setting. On this one, I started on a four and reduced it to a 2 by the final batch. Somewhere around 3 is likely okay if you let the pan heat up all the way.
• The Bisquick mix is a bit stickier on the cast iron skillet, so use some PAM, oil, or something similar on each batch. The first batch I made I didn't do this and they stuck in the pan and I had to scrape them out.

Just Don't Say It

Yet another article I'm reading has one of the many permutations on the phrase, "The person, who wasn't authorized to discuss the changes publicly, spoke on condition of anonymity" (emphasis mine). I think this phrase is absolutely to blame for most of the reporting we see and most of the erroneous news we uncover.

I read a lot of sports pages. Any time that PED (Performance Enhancing Drugs) are discussed, that phrase is linked. 9 out of 10 times that a list of suspected users is leaked, it is from someone hiding behind this phrase, or a variant. Frankly, if you are not supposed to be talking about it, then DON'T. Honor your contract with your company, honor your position, do your job, and stay the hell out of it.

Nearly any time I see an article about some celebrity being arrested or accused of something, that phrase appears again. Almost every time, some smaller scandal about one or more police officers being reprimanded or dismissed due to them being the leak comes out a few weeks later. If any organization should understand that you do not leak or release sensitive data, especially if you are not cleared for that data or to release it, it should be a cop. Just do your job, respect the law, and SHUT UP if questioned.

How is it that sites like Ain't It Cool News and Drudge Report get divorce papers, police reports, and other sensitive and confidential information about stars and celebs so quickly? There's that phrase again. Instead of treating that information as sensitive and thinking about how little they would like it if their same information were leaked about their divorce, domestic abuse, or financial woes, the people want to earn a quick buck and become that anonymous source that tells all... for a price.

Now, I will grant you that whistle-blowers are needed in certain circumstances. When a business is doing something patently wrong, that harms people directly, and in conflict with the laws regulating their business or the rights of the people, then people need to step up and make it known. But do it correctly; go to a legitimate law enforcement office or a lawyer. Don't go to the nearest internet news site or contact Hard Copy, ET, your local TV, or whatever.

If I were running a business that had sensitive data (like tracking drug testing in sports, for example), I would use some sort of version control or similar software, plus physical procedures, to track each person who had access to and contact with the sensitive data. I would have a policy in place that stated any leak of that data while it was in your possession or checked out to you, regardless of whether YOU actually did it, would result in your immediate and summary expulsion from the company and criminal proceedings filed against you. In this way, the people who worked for me would know absolutely that I don't care if someone looks over their shoulder or uses their passwords/logins or whatever-- it is their responsibility to do everything that they can to keep this data private, or they can work elsewhere.

Freedom of the press is one of the many things that makes America, and most of the free world, great. However, in this day and age of instant news and scooping the other 1001 agencies, the press has forgotten that their right to report ends where the rights of the individual to privacy begin.

Matter of fact, that is a lesson that most of America seems to have forgotten or chooses to ignore; your rights end where my rights begin. Your freedom of speech doesn't trump my right to privacy and to defend myself from slander and libel. Your right to peaceably assemble ends where my rights to individual property ownership and safety begin. Your right to practice the religion of your choice ends where my right to practice the religion of my choice begins. Your right to protest against the practice of abortion ends where another's right to a safe, clean medical procedure begin. Etcetera. This is why the Supreme Court is supposed to do its damnedest to ensure that its rulings cover the biggest majority of opinions in this country, even if some of those covered by it don't like it.

I guess it comes down to this: your right to your 15 minutes (more like seconds, these days) of fame and a monetary payoff end where my right to privacy begin. Be accountable for your own self first and leave me to be accountable for me.

Musical Comebacks

I was speaking with my wife about artists whom we would like to see have a spontaneous comeback to relevance in the music world.

She makes a valid argument for Heart. This band has been around since the 70s and has had some fairly strong hits over the years, but hasn't really hit big since the late 80s or early 90s. I was never a big fan, but liked some of their music. Recently, the 101 (on DirecTV) had a Heart concert from 2003 on and they still had it. Ann could still hit most of the notes and definitely still had the power and (most of the) range that signified Heart's early career. Nancy still rocked the guitar as well as some other instruments. She also is a talented singer.

They played some songs I had never heard as well. Some from an album they were about to release at the time, which I found quite interesting and beautiful to listen to. I can completely understand my wife's desire to see them have a resurgence.

My main candidate for a resurgence is George Michael. Michael is an extremely talented musician and songwriter who has slipped into easy dance music trends, and is more known for his exploits in men's rooms and with marijuana than music these days. I would love to see him drop a new album (Listen Without Prejudice, Volume 2?) that would have relevant, strong songs that show his range and versatility. This is the man who did Careless Whisper, Last Christmas, Father Figure, Faith, I Want Your Sex, Freedom, Jesus to a Child, Soul Free, and Older (to name a few).

There was some small talk about him taking over the lead for Queen, which I still think is an incredible idea. The few times he's teamed with Queen have been magical collaborations, and I can only imagine what they could do together on a semi-permanent basis.

In the end, I'm looking for Michael to put out something as relevant and involving as either Faith or Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1, or even as solid an effort as Older. I long to hear his music and his incredible voice doing something that I want to hear (dance music is okay, but not my cup of tea).

Another I'd like to see comeback is Axl Rose and Slash re-teaming as Guns N Roses and dropping a sick heavy metal album like Appetite for Destruction. Not only is metal currently in an ebb cycle, but Axl has gone off the deep end ans Slash can't seem to find a band or interest as vital and vibrant as his days with Guns N Roses. When the two were together, they created some incredible metal music that still resonates today. It would be incredible if they could get together and find some of that magic again.

What artist or band who either hasn't been heard from or has faded to the background would you like to see make a huge comeback or resurgence to popularity, if even for just one album?

Dear David

Dear David Stern,

I am a lifelong fan of the NBA and the Lakers in particular. My parents were Lakers fans when I was small and, even though now I live on the east coast of Canada and rarely get to see the Lakers play due to either scheduling or the time the games start, I am still a fan. I look forward to their getting into the playoffs, because it assures me a number of games I can watch (even if it is really late at night here).

But, Mr. Stern, you have a serious, serious problem. Most of my friends here are not big sports fans, but are willing to watch and learn. And many of them, my wife included, hate watching the NBA because of the *ahem* inconsistency of the refereeing.

Okay, I'm glossing that over and putting a shine to it: they, and I, HATE the reffing in your sport.

The NBA trumpeted how much better the refing would be when it added the third ref. All I saw was the number of bad calls go up by about a third. When watching a game, especially using my much-loved TiVo, I watch the replays or make my own and watch not nearly as often for whether a foul was actually commited, but rather which of the refs called it. And nine out of ten times, the ref who is completely blocked from seeing the play is the one who whistles the supposed foul. Now, in most cases, he has the body of the defender in his way and can't possibly see if that swipe made contact. Go ahead, Mr. Stern, watch ANY game and do this and you'll see that I'm right.

Next, while watching that game, listen to the announcers. With the exception of the horrible Jeff Van Gundy, most of your announcers and color men are very good. But, as we watch replays of the "fouls" committed and the color guys explain them, for the most part they are a) writing fiction and it is obvious they are trying to justify a call rather than truly explain it or b) they talk about how one player (almost always the offensive player) "draws" or "creates" contact by leaping into a defender. I've read the rules for your sport, Mr. Stern, and any time a player is the one creating contact HE is the one who should be whistled for the foul. The vast majority of charging calls and "and ones" in the NBA should be offensive turnovers or fouls on the offensive player -- but that is not how you want the games called, so you fine anyone who points it out.

I still shudder over Reggie Miller's most famous shots: he would leap into the air and kick out his legs and literally kick a defender in the chest, arms, or legs, which should be an offensive foul every single time, yet he ALWAYS got the call in his favor and got an and-one.

Some other rules that you should watch and see just how badly your refs call are:

1. The hand is part of the ball. So each of those times the fans watch a replay of an offensive player sweeping the ball through the defender's arms and getting slapped on the hand you have a) an offensive player committing a foul by initiating contact and b) a defender usually hitting the ball and hands, which are legal. Either way, it should either be a no-call or an offensive foul, yet it is always called on the defender.

2. A defender who holds his ground with his arms raised and/or who leaps straight up is following the rules for defenders. Yet about ninety percent of the time that defender is called for a foul against an offensive player who leaps directly into him. I was pleasantly surprised to see some nice no-calls in games 5 and 6 of the Lakers' series versus the Thunder, but that is not the norm by any means. In nearly all cases, the defender is whistled for the foul even though he stood his ground and did not initiate contact.

3. The act of shooting. This rule is designed so that, if the offensive player is in the act of shooting when the foul occurs, he gets the result of the shot plus a foul shot or he gets two foul shots if the shot is missed. However, we have refs allowing players to throw, flick, lob, etc. the ball vaguely in the direction of the basket, often well after the whistle has sounded, and get the "and-one." This needs to stop. If you are truly 'in the act of shooting,' great. But refs need to stop allowing foul shots after a pivot and a step and a flick of the ball generally in the direction of the basket (which just as easily could have been a pass).

I have some suggestions that can help the refs call a better, more consistent game:

1. Instruct them only to calls they actually SEE, as opposed to those they assume happen and are blocked off from seeing. If they don't actually see a foul, keep the whistle in your pocket and don't call anything. Allowing the game to be played is much more exciting and allows for more scoring than a whistle every time down the court for the stupidest, smallest, most ticky-tack of calls (I give you all of game 6 of the Jazz/Nuggets series).

2. Revisit the rules for defense and allow defenders to follow them without being called for fouls.

3. Instruct the refs to call the player who initiates contact with another player, regardless of if that is offensive or defensive.

4. Remind refs that, just because a player falls down doesn't mean that a foul was committed. Feet get tangled, wet spots on floors, even players paying too much attention to what their coach is screaming at them from the sidelines have all caused players to fall down... none of which is a foul according to your rules.

5. Replay. Have a booth official whose job is to review out of bounds, flagrant fouls, jump balls, last second shots, etc. to ensure that the right team has the ball, the right player(s) are jumping it, etc. No more than 10 seconds per review should be enough. Have this guy in charge of three-second calls, too, not the guys on the court.

6. Allow refs to overrule each other. If the ref who couldn't see a play calls a horrible foul, allow the ref(s) who didn't see and was in position to overrule the other.

Mr. Stern, I love basketball. It is fast-paced and exciting to watch. But the obvious biases shown by the refs for and against certain players and teams, the egregiously bad calls in any game, and the inconsistency of the rules followed by the refs make it hard to truly just sit back and enjoy the sport. It also makes it hard to grow your fan base and bring it to regions where another sport is king, as fans don't like fighting the refs. Bad calls will happen, of course, in any sport. But most sports work very hard to make sure that the refs stay in the background and don't decide games. Yet in the NBA many fans and a lot of new people think that the refs decide games. This image hurts your reputation as a sport and draws fans away from it.

No matter how much you fine players, coaches, and media personnel, the fact that you have had to go so draconian to keep these comments at bay indicates the level of problem you have with this aspect of your sport. It has to stop.

Hopefully, you will consider these ideas and make improvements in your sport. I really want to love watching basketball again, rather than sit fuming at the refs and arguing with friends over the bad calls made in every game.


Sincerely,

John

Bowling Revisited

I went to my first Canadian bowling alley and tried out 10-pin Candlestick bowling for the first time. As an ardent 10-pin "big ball" bowler for years, it was very different.

First, the ball is very light and about the size of a softball. Because I'm used to throwing my 15 lbs ball, I wound up chucking the little, light ball more than halfway down the lane on my first throw. It took a few throws before I was consistently throwing on the boards. With it being that light, I felt like I was really hurling the ball down the lanes. Not a bad thing, in this version, except I was very naturally putting a hook on the ball, so frequently missed all the pins and went into the gutter at the last moment to the left. It took awhile before I got the hook somewhat under control.

The pins are tall, narrow, and light, making the standard pins I'm used to look large and heavy. In between throws, the fallen pins do not get cleaned-- one of the challenges is using the fallen pins to help you get the remaining pins. This really threw me for the first game or so.

Because of the sizes of everything, you get three throws each frame. You can only score a strike on the first throw and a spare on the second throw, but you can still get 10 points (but not a "mark") by knocking down all of the pins on your third throw.

The scoring is a bit different, too. I'm not sure I can explain it here, as I'm not completely sure I was doing it right, but you seemed to add both forward and backward when scoring a spare or strike. In standard bowling, you only score ahead. Again, not certain I have the scoring fully grasped yet.

All in all, it was a fun trip. I think I could pick it up in about 20 hours of play, if I decide I want to. The good thing about it is that, with the ball so small and light, my arthritis issues didn't really come into play.

Sports Winners and Losers

Football, Draft Part 1:

All I'm reading today is that Tim Tebow, one of the all-time winning college players, was an absolute failure of a pick by Denver in the first round. Fans are moaning over the pick. Pundits are saying that Josh McDaniels has basically picked himself out of a job after this season.

I don't know much about Tebow, as I don't follow college football at all. All I know is what I see on game tape and what I read and see at the college combine and pro workouts.

Tebow, by all accounts, is a very smart guy. His football IQ is quite high. He is extremely coachable. He is hardworking and dependable. He's a great leader. He's physically gifted with size, strength, and speed. In other words, he has the body, mind, and intangibles needed to succeed at any profession, anywhere.

I have often said that I would rather have a whole team of Wes Welkers than even one Terrell Owens. Yes, because I don't have the most talented players, I may lose a few games. But because I have people who are smart, love the game, and play every down 100%, I'm going to win a lot of games I "shouldn't." Tim Tebow seems to fit that mold of a guy who will learn and do what it takes to succeed at the pro level.

Will Tebow start in five months for the Broncos? No. And that's a GOOD thing, people! It is exceptionally rare that any new QB is successful in their first season (I point directly to Peyton Manning's first season). More often than not, even if they are successful, it has a lot more to do with the team around them than their ability in that first season. Tebow will need time to adjust to the NFL, be coached, learn the system. I think that Kyle Orten, who by all accounts is a smart and professional guy, will be a great person to learn under. I think that Quinn is a great person to both teach and put pressure on Tebow to succeed during QB competition within the organization.

I am fairly certain that each of those sports pundits and all of those fans decrying this heinous pick will be choking on their words in a season or two.

Football, Draft Part 2:

It really looks like the Detroit Lions (my team) have finally got a coach and front office staff who know what they are doing. In their first draft last season, they got a starting TE and DB, and what may turn out to be a franchise QB. This season, they did the smart thing and drafted a DT who many considered the best overall prospect in the draft. They then traded back into the first round and got what may be an electrifying RB.

Now, with their next few picks, if they can shore up a leaky Offensive Line (a deep position in this draft) and draft for some depth in the defense, this will be two straight very good drafts after the Millen years.

Of course, they have a really tough strength of schedule again. The other three teams in their division are all tough customers (Bears, Packers, Vikings), and they play the AFC East this season, which has three tough opponents (Patriots, Dolphins, Jets) and another team that, even if it isn't so great, has a tough venue (Bills). Then they also have to see the Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, and Redskins, each of which is a tough out even when they aren't playing well.

I see the Lions coming in somewhere around 5 wins this season. Since they have gone 0-16 and 2-14 the last two seasons, five wins is a good turnaround and shows a steady progression toward relevance once more.

Basketball, Lakers playoffs:

I am a Lakers fan, so I am biased. I realize this. But by any stretch of the imagination, the current series versus the Thunder has been poorly refereed. While I have seen bad calls on both sides of the ball, it sure seems like the Lakers are getting the short end of the stick.

In the last game, for example, Gasol went for a rebound. The Thunder player behind him went over his back to get the ball (no call), the player in front of him reached out to swat at the ball and scratched down his face leaving marks (no call), and when the whistle blew, it was Gasol who was somehow charged with a foul (I guess his head got in the way).

In another instance in the previous game, Fisher had multiple fouls. He didn't want to get called for another one. So he stepped away from the Thunder player and retracted his hands, hoping his teammates could stop the drive toward the basket. Sure enough, the whistle blew... foul on Fisher (I guess it is a foul to avoid contact).

In the last two games Kobe has been frequently double- and triple-teamed. During those moments, you see his jersey being tugged, you see his arms moving from the force of the blows raining down on them. In a couple of instances, I watched his head get hit repeatedly. So far, the only whistles I've heard blown were on Kobe (I guess for being in the way). Most egregiously, you have Durant getting calls his way with the slightest (and phantom) contact, and getting his stroke going at the free throw line. You have Kobe getting mugged by multiple players each time he drives to the basket, and yet he didn't shoot a free throw in the entire game.

The discrepancy in foul shots between the two teams is telling, as well. The Thunder have shot more foul shots than the Lakers in each game by a fairly large margin (in basketball terms), even when the Lakers were at home.

The Lakers are not what they were last season. The bench has not been as strong and consistent, Artest has not been an improvement over Ariza, Fisher is not the same player he has been, and Kobe simply has so much mileage on his body that all the little injuries have slowed him down. They also stop playing the winning formula of getting it inside to Bynum and Gasol and kick it out when needed too often. The Thunder are up-and-coming fast. Durant is a phenomenal talent and Westbrook is making a name for himself. They are a tough matchup for the Lakers at any time, but when it is 5 on 8, it makes it that much tougher.

Body Snatchers and Other Invasions

My parents let me watch the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers perhaps when I was too young; I understood the movie just fine and that was the problem... the bleak ending with McCarthy on the highway trying to warn people scared and stuck with me.

Then came the Donald Sutherland remake, still considered one of the all-time best remakes ever. This movie frightened me even more, as the ending is so much bleaker-- the aliens appear to win.

As one who has had trouble sleeping since a young lad, the fact that the aliens in these movies "got" and copied people while they slept was particularly telling.

Each of these movies was fairly successful for their times (50s and late 70s).

In 1993, a new vision of this classic story came to the screen. While many of the effects were pretty good, I remember it most for the few nude scenes showing me a young Gabrielle Anwar. This movie went with a more ambivalent ending, and you are not sure if the main characters attacks on the pods is the end of it, or if Marti's stepmother's comments foresee the pods spreading all across the world. The movie didn't even make a million dollars at the box office, and was not particularly well-received by the few critics who reviewed it (but it was not horribly reviewed, either).

I just finished watching the 2007 reimagining of the story starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. The general concept of the film was decent (spores instead of pods), but Kidman looked horrible and showed no spark or imagination in her portrayal of the main character. I found myself actually rooting against her. Craig, an actor I generally admire and like, was wooden throughout; his best scene came once he was a pod-person, as that called for a more wooden delivery.

They also chose to go with a happy ending; Kidman saves her son, who happens to be immune from the infection, and a vaccine against the spores is developed. The director tried to add some ambivalence into the story by showing that, while under the effects of the pods, the world signs peace treaties. Once everyone is cured, it is back to wars and tribulation. While I realize the original story by Jack Finney actually ended with the pods giving up on Earth and floating away, the precedent has already been set by the first two that having the pods "win" (or, at least, not be defeated/discovered/done away with) makes for a richer story and a more horrific, lasting movie. Some could argue that this was the first "twist" ending horror film, as most of the 50s horror flicks ending with the hero triumphing.

There was a good film here. The change of the pods to spores and the way in which the spores got to Earth was interesting. From there on, however, the movie started to lose its imagination.

The casting of Kidman was the first major mistake made. I haven't seen her truly "lead" a film yet; she's much better in an ensemble or with a strong male lead or two to play off (the closest she comes in my mind is her role in The Others, a far superior classic horror/ghost story).

Secondly, having her son be the cure changed it from a horror movie into an action flick, as she raced to save her son (who was strangely absent from most of the meat of the film with little explanation as to why) and then raced to get him to the people who it just so happens can make an inoculation from his blood.

Third, having the "happy" (or non-ambivalent, non-horror) ending where everyone is cured and doesn't remember anything that happened to them while under the influences of the pods leaves a rather poor taste in the viewer's mouth. The whole concept is that the spores are rewriting human being's DNA -- a simple inoculation can rewrite it back? This is, at best, bad science and at worst a huge cop out by the writer/director. In the first three, when the pod is functional it somehow kills the host. But those films were going for horror, not action/suspense, so the deaths make more sense, I guess.

Fourth, many of the special effects and CGI just didn't look very good. Each time Kidman went to sleep for brief periods, we were accosted by too-glossy, fake-looking images of the spores inside her attacking and blowing up her blood cells (why they did this when it was expressly said earlier that the spores attacked and rewrote our DNA I don't completely understand). These scenes were so laughable as to completely take me out of the viewing experience. Add to this Kidman's lackluster performance during the "freak out because you nearly fell asleep" scenes that followed each of these effects, and this viewer was not impressed in the least.

This is a good story concept that has worked very well twice, okay once, and failed miserably another time. Hopefully someone who understands the horror of this idea will take the ball and run with it; I think today's technology can make for a truly horrific story of people being replaced, the fear of going to sleep (when human beings are at their most vulnerable to begin with), and the horror of finding out you are one of the last "real" people left on the planet.

Birthdays and Other Thoughts

Most people get excited over their birthdays. I have, however, had enough negative things occur on and around my birthday that I approach it cautiously and with trepidation these days. It is not that I mind getting older -- not at all.

Let's see, I've had some wickedly awful birthday parties when I was young. Chernobyl; enough said. I've had two major "reorganizations" occur right around that week. I've had some health issues crop up on or around my birthday. And I was last fired the week of my birthday (my (now) wife was visiting and got to participate in that one).

I've probably had a number of good things happen around that time, too. However, the bad has stood out and been memorable, so that is how I approach the day.

---

On the road to Fredericton on Saturday I saw my first, live, up-close moose. It was just on the other side of the moose fence (thankfully), and was bent over eating leaves off a tree. If it had stood upright, it would have been close to as tall as the fence, though. You know in your head that they are big creatures, but seeing one live really impresses it upon you. If I had a camera, i would have pulled over and taken a picture of it.

Driving home from Moncton on Monday, I saw a huge eagle. While its head was lighter in color than its neck/body, I don't think it was an American eagle. It was on the very top of a denuded tree, and there were some crows and smaller birds nearby acting all agitated to really give it some size comparison... and it was big! The slightly curved beak looked like a pair of tin snips and the huge, curved claws looked like they could rip through steel.

---

Sent my resume to an American company that may be interested in having some tech writing done. *Fingers crossed. They were very impressed with my work history; I'm hoping that my salary interests as a 15 year veteran don't scare them off. But I'd like to get what I'm worth, and according to the Monster.com salary comparison, I'm asking for the 50th percentile (median) for the region, so I hope not.

That Time of the Year Again

Last night, got tired finally around 3-3:30am. The night before, 5:30 am. The night before that, 5 am. The night before that, 4ish.

As I get older and feel like I need more consistent sleep, these 2-3 periods of the year where I can't sleep well are dragging me down much harder. And I'm not young enough to bounce back and pretend to not be running at half capacity any more. I slept from about 4am (took a bit after going to bed to fall asleep) until my alarm at 8:30, got out of bed at 9:30 after an hour's fitful sleep, and feel like utter crap now at 11:15.

On top of it, if you aren't feeling well, the lack of sleep can make you feel even worse. I had a touch of a bug last week and now I'm feeling really bad because of the sleeplessness. My body hasn't had its time to fight it off and get better.