I Kind Of Have To Wonder, Part Two - Hopefully Without The Blog Editor Randomly Moving The Cursor This Time

Right.

Before my original post was hijacked by random cursor movement and posting-without-warning-for-no-discernible-reason, I had started with:

...You thought I was going to leave you hanging with Part One, didn't you?

But I'm not.

See, I have other great questions, things I have to ask, things that make me go "what the hell?" and other such gems.

And I feel compelled to share.

So.

Let's start off with softball questions, shall we?

If one of the scientists at the heart of the recent "climategate" scandal, Professor Philip Jones, admits there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995, why do so many people still believe in it?

If the states which HAVE universal healthcare are all going broke - like, say, Massachusetts and Tennessee - why the hell does anyone want it for the whole country?

If nuclear reactors were a bad idea for years, why are they suddenly ok now?

If people have been killed in "sudden acceleration incidents" in Toyotas for years, why are they only suing now that there are safety recalls?

I have speculation about each of these, so allow me to expand.

The global warming and nuclear reactor things are connected. The Obama Administration has been slammed from both sides about global warming, from the right because - as they rightly point out - it is looking more and more like the scientific evidence to support the theory is basically a gigantic surplus of bovine-origin organic fertilizer, and from the left because - as they rightly point out - he hasn't really done anything about it.

At his best, Obama has tagged enormous taxpayer funds to pay scientists to come up with more inconclusive data; nothing substantive whatsoever.

Which means that if he wants to retain the goodwill of his core constituency, he must be seen to be doing something with actual effect.

Going nuclear is - regardless of the wackos - clearly the way to go about this. Nuclear plants produce way more power than coal, oil, water, wind, or solar; they don't run the risk of eliminating precious, non-renewable natural resources forever; and...

...Whoa, there, is he talking about PLUTONIUM plants?

Why yes he is.

Which makes this a stupid gesture, not just an ill-advised and unpopular one. See, plutonium nuclear piles produce toxic waste, which cannot be safely contained in any facility we have yet devised; it is hugely poisonous, and stays that way for long enough that "the foreseeable future" is a reasonable description.

They can melt down.

They can vent heat - especially hot water - into the environment, which in the case of hot water leaks, can decimate the fish populations in rivers.

Plutonium plants baaaaaad. In that regard, the greenies are right.

Where they're wrong is in assuming that plutonium is the only available nuclear fuel, and that nuclear technology is time-locked in the 1950's.

Both are wrong.

See, these days, newer designs, like the South African pebble-bed modular reactor, are meltdown-proof; they never reach a critical mass in a single element, instead using helium gas to conduct the neutrons between the separated fuel elements. The bottom of the reaction chamber is sealed by a high-temperature wax plug; if the pile ever reaches a temperature in the danger zone, the wax melts, releasing the helium gas - which can transmit but not retain radiation - and the reaction stops instantly for lack of fuel.

They are perfectly safe.

Since they don't use water to keep the reaction cool, there's no danger of hot water venting, either.

And best of all - they don't run on plutonium. They run on thorium, which is far, far more plentiful than plutonium or uranium, and has the added benefit of not only leaving no toxic waste itself, but in fact rendering the wastes of uranium and plutonium reactors inert and safe if they are introduced into the reactor vessel.

In other words, they can not only provide clean power, they can also clean up all the messes from the older technology.

The greenies still won't be happy, but that's ok, because most of them can't read, and were going to protest your power plant no matter what it is, as witness the fact that they've been bitching about the wind farms, too, because they kill birds.

So, Obama has committed - again - billions of taxpayer dollars to the wrong idea, thus proving - again - that the government ought to stay out of these kinds of things, because they just plain don't know what the hell they're talking about.

So. On to healthcare.

Tennessee is suffering right now because their "universal" healthcare program nearly bankrupted the state; they are now trying desperately to cut as many people off the rolls of "eligible" people as possible.

If it's universal, it's for everybody, right?

The way to achieve that is to make it affordable, not to make the government pay for it. Having government-paid healthcare simply means that everyone will go to the doctor and incur huge expenses for the tiniest of ailments, instead of staying home and taking theraflu like they're supposed to; the mounting charges CANNOT HELP but bankrupt the country.

And as for Toyota... I want to insert two notes here, one directly related to this latest rash of lawsuits, and the other referring back to my article the other day.

After the bad parts from the Dana Holding Corporation were listed, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler all came forward to announce that their vehicles would be unaffected by the bad parts.

Why is this interesting? Because all three of them manufacture car models that use those same parts, from those same lines.

Nearly miraculous, then, that of four companies that all use the same parts from the same manufacturer, ALL - ONE HUNDRED PERCENT - of the bad parts, went to a single customer: Toyota.

More miraculous yet: the other three manufacturers which use those same parts...

...Knew they had nothing to worry about.

Anyone think the fix is in, hmmm?

And for the lawsuits...

Back in the 80's, the Audi Corporation went through a similar rash of "sudden-acceleration" incidents, followed by a rash of lawsuits.

The NTSB investigated. Exhaustively. For years.

Their conclusion?

Drivers were letting themselves get distracted and hitting the wrong goddamn pedal.

I wish I was kidding; the direct quote is "pedal misapplication."

This, by the way, was documented in one of Ralph Nader's books.

You want to know what makes this different from the situation with Toyota?

Some of the cases being brought into litigation are coming from as far back as 1988.

22 years ago.

Why?

Because lawyers, like sharks, can smell blood in the water.

"Ok, Awkward..."

So, using our free movie passes from the other night, we went to see Legion this morning.

For me this was a very...

...Errr...

Uneven movie.

How so?

Well, the plot is pretty tight; the action works, there are a few good scares, it doesn't bore you with endless weird expository statements; all good things.

The dialogue...

Well, there were three separate places in the movie when I turned to Tara and said "Ok, awkward..." and there were two more that I didn't do that for only because she said she was going to smack me if I didn't stop.

But the crown jewel of the collection was when she and I were both convinced that the two archangels were going in for The Big Man Smooch. Thankfully they didn't, but the level of homoeroticism in the scene where Michael and Gabriel confront each other was...

...Awkward.

Look, it's the best word for it, ok?

I really wanted to like this movie; I DID like the ending, which was inconclusive enough to probably piss off most of the intended audience, but offered a slice of hope that was a nice contrast.

But seriously, the awkwardness of the dialogue was really too much to overlook. I tried, but "it does not have to be this way, my brother." "It can be no other way." "Then it shall be this way."

...What? Are you SERIOUS?

...This kind of thing reminds me forcibly that movie scripts are unionized.

Toyota Picked The Wrong Time To Run Those "Reliability" Ads, I'd Say

First, they had to recall millions of vehicles for accelerator issues.

Then they had to recall three more models for brake issues.

Now they're recalling another model - the Tacoma pickup - for powertrain issues.

It's not looking good for Toyota.

But here's something I'd like you to think about.

All the parts involved in all the recalls Toyota's had to do, even counting the recall of the Tundra model last year for frame corrosion, all of them - were manufactured by an American company called Dana Holding Corporation.

Dana Holding Corporation's other major customers are Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors.

Toyota's plants are, by and large, all located in states that are "right to work" states, which means they are NOT manned by the United Auto Workers' Union... But Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors are pretty much exclusively manned by union workers.

I wonder if someone, somewhere, might just have had a little word with the Dana Holding Corporation, and explained just how bad it could be for the company if three of their four main customers went away... and how much better off they'd be, if those same three suddenly got to expand their business thanks to the collapse of the other customer.

For the record, this is speculation; I can't prove it.

But the fact that all the parts thus far recalled have come from that single company is highly suspicious, don't you think?

Did You Read The Book First, I Wonder? (Second of two movie reviews today)

OK, the first time I saw a trailer for Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief, I thought "great, Harry Potter knockoff," and I'm pretty sure everyone else who saw the trailer did, too.

But I decided to check it out, so I procured copies of the entire 5-book series and read 'em.

For the record, the books are very different from Harry Potter; the only significant similarity is that there is a school involved, but considering the main characters never spend more than a few pages there in ANY of the books, it's not really very much like Harry Potter, in which the whole series essentially takes place IN a school. (For all two of you that have never read either set.)

Also for the record, the Percy Jackson books are actually pretty good; they very subtly tackle some important issues, without a lot of the handholding the J. K. Rowling seems to do, and are pretty tightly paced; the books range between 250 and 300 pages, but go by so fast they don't feel that long at all.

For those of you with some mild interest, I will say that both the movie and the books are good; the movie is enjoyable, blah blah.

However.

The movie is so vastly different from the book - for no real reason that I could see, in a lot of places - that I was left actually wondering something that seems pretty important...

...How in the hell are they going to do any of the sequels?

Considering they blithely erased several key characters, stuck others together haphazardly, gave away huge chunks of the plot of later books freely while ignoring things that were key plot points in THIS book, and generally changed the entire tone of the story, I'm mystified.

Now, bear in mind that I DID say that the movie is enjoyable; it is. I expect it will be followed around by slobbering great herds of teenyboppers, either - depending on gender and orientation - oogling Logan Lerman (Percy) or Alexandra Daddario (Annabeth.) Don't worry; you don't have to feel creepy when you eye her up the first time she shows up; in real life she's 24. (Thank god!) Also, they found some kind of magical injection that gives like plus 4,000% hotness, and gave it to Rosario Dawson - who is already quite attractive, thanks - several times for this movie.

Damn.

But it's not even "loosely based" on the book. In fact, THE key plot point of the entire series, the linchpin that holds the entire set together, wasn't even mentioned in this one; it would be like if they got rolling on the Harry Potter books and forgot to include Voldemort.

Actually, it would be EXACTLY like that.

The end result is kind of a mystery to me. It's an enjoyable adventure movie, I suppose, in a generic sort of way, but most of the elements that made it really cool and unique are absent, and with so many crucial plot points and characters simply gone, it makes me seriously wonder if they have any plan to even bother with sequels at all. I suppose they will; look at the Bourne movies, which did exactly the same thing.

It was fun as an adventure movie. It was a FUCKING TERRIBLE adaptation of the books. So, if you want the one, go; if you want the other... Save your bucks. If you've read the books, wait for this one on Netflix, because if you pay theater admission for it you are quite likely to be seriously pissed off.

Vindicated At Last!!! (First of two movie reviews today)

I'm sure, as it was just a blurb two and a half years ago, that none of you recall me mentioning the remake of Universal's 1941 classic, The Wolfman.

Prepare for some cinematic heresy.

*Ahem.*

Back in the day, the Great Horror Trifecta was born, that being Vampire, Mummy, Werewolf.

Back in the day, those classic monsters, and their second-tier buddies The Creature (Frankenstein, y'all, get with me here,) The Seamonster, and The Lunatic, were taken seriously. They delivered some chills.

But in recent decades, they've been treated for comic effect instead; as witness Brendan Fraser in the Mummy remakes, Wes Craven embarrassing himself with Cursed, and, well, Twilight.

Last year, 30 Days of Night rescued The Vampire from this cinematic oblivion.

This year, The Wolfman does one better for the Werewolf.

Yeah, better. Not only that, but better than the original, too.

I know, boo, hiss, all that, but it's fucking, fucking awesome. Benicio Del Toro was the best pick for Lawrence Talbot; Anthony Hopkins vicious as his father; Agent Smith from the Matrix was there to say "Mr. Anderson" one more time... OK, that was me. I got shushed. Shut up.

At any rate, the movie had a directorial change from my original post, and was helmed by Joe Johnston, who also directed October Sky, as well as a slew of other movies that would make you cringe.

Somehow he found a new level of talent. The same guys distribute directorial talent that send you big boxes of driving skill on your 25th birthday so you can get that insurance discount, I guess.

Because this movie was... Goddamn... Brilliant.

Was it a work of art? Probably not.

But it was THE WOLFMAN, dammit! No punches pulled, no holds barred, no flinching. Well, except the audience. The script was tight, fast-paced, and very tense; the actors all got the chew on the scenery an appropriate amount - especially Hopkins, who ran away with it, in my opinion - but the bar none star of the show was...

...Rick Baker.

Those of you who aren't horror movie fans might not recognize the name, but Rick Baker is THE horror movie special effects guy; at his worst, he's tied with Rob Bottin, who is my other personal favorite FX guru.

Baker was responsible for Videodrome, Y'all. The Howling. An American Werewolf In London. Star Wars Episode 4. The Ring. Fucking Hellboy. Rick Baker is awesome.

And they gave him loads and loads of money to play with this time.

The result is...

Wow.

Just... Wow.

If you are AT ALL a horror fan, or a werewolf fan, this movie will flat-out blow you away.

To add to my utter delight - and sense of vindication at having called this one TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO - thanks to the theater goofing the projection during the opening credits, we got passes to go see another movie free tomorrow. Be on the lookout for a Legion review!

Celebrating The Triumphant Return!!!

Since I'm finally back online, finally, finally, I am posting the recipe for one of my favorite desserts.

I know, I know, the Super Bowl, but all the teams I would have rooted for got knocked off during the playoffs, so this one was kinda *shrug* there.

It was just ok for me, dawg.

So, this is a two-part recipe. Bear in mind it's a dessert; it's not supposed to be healthy.

First, the ingredients. For the cream sauce:

1 1/2 cup evaporated milk

1 cup sweetened condensed milk (Eagle brand!)

1 cup heavy cream

1 tsp vanilla extract (not the fake stuff, either.)

1 tablespoon Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum

And, for the cake:

5 large eggs, separated

1/3 cup milk

1/2 tsp vanilla extract

1 cup all-purpose flour

1 1/2 tsp baking powder

1 cup sugar

1/2 tsp cream of tartar

1/2 tsp nutmeg

1/2 tsp ginger

1/2 tsp cinnamon

First, butter a 13x9 cake pan fairly generously, and pre-heat the oven to 350.

Beat 3/4 cup of the sugar and the egg yolks together until they're light, and then fold in the milk, vanilla, flour, baking powder, and spices except for the cream of tartar.

Beat the egg yolks into soft peaks, adding the cream of tartar gradually. Once the cream of tartar is entirely mixed in, beat in the rest of the sugar gradually, continuing to beat the egg whites until they mixture is firm but not dry.

Fold the egg white mixture into the yolk mixture. Pour the resulting batter into the buttered cake pan, and bake 30-45 minutes or until a toothpick comes out clean.

Remove the cake from the oven and let it cool completely. Pierce it all over with a fork, so that it's well-ventilated, but take care not to tear it up.

While the cake cools, combine the cream sauce ingredients in a mixing bowl and whisk briskly until completely blended. Pour the cream sauce over the cake until it is fully absorbed. You can serve immediately, or refrigerate it.

I would top it with whipped cream, and maybe some shredded coconut (if you like coconut. I do, some don't.)

This, by the way, is a variation (mine, thanks) on a classic Hispanic dish, "pastel de tres leches," or "three milk cake."

Rich? Oh, hell, yes. But then, you're not eating dessert to skinny up, are ya, tubby?

Enjoy, y'all.

I Kind Of Have To Wonder, Part One

The office of the President of the United States is a singularly thankless one. Loads of responsibility, both actual and perceived, diplomacy with nations and people that hate you with at least some of your constituents mad at you no matter your success or failure, lower pay than Congress... All in all, bad. So you have to wonder about the motives of someone who wants the office at all. Much less someone who wants it enough to raise almost a billion dollars to get it, more than anyone else in the history of our nation. What inducement could make someone want the Presidency so badly as that? Especially when anyone knows government is mostly home to the corrupt and the incompetent? I really have to wonder. Don't you?

Words, Meanings, And "Post Racism"

Let me ask you a serious question.

Why is Obama black?

No doubt, you're thinking two things: that the answer is obvious, and that I am an idiot for asking that.

Let's see where I go with that, first, hmmm?

Barack Obama was born to TWO parents, you know, not one: a black man, and a white woman. So why is he automatically able to identify with the plight and trauma of the black people, and unable to keep from dealing with white people with contempt and arrogance?

Why is he identified by only half his genetic heritage?

Why is it that of his two parents, only the black one counts?

He is lauded, oddly enough, as the "post-racial" president, which seems inherently ridiculous to me; how can a man who intentionally, often, and openly tries to deny half his racial heritage, be "post-racial?"

In fact, we have begun a process, over the last few years, that is ridiculous and damaging.

We are destroying our language.

Words, you see, have meanings. Denotative meantings, as well as connotative meanings.

For those of you whose vocabularies are sending you running for Dictionary.com, denotative meaning is the actual, literal meaning of the word, and the only one valid for communication. Connotative meaning is the associations you personally have developed regarding a particular word, and using that meaning to attempt communication makes the silly assumption that your listener has the same associations.

Since humans are unique, this is never true, and thus connotative meanings are useless.

So.

Words have meanings. But in recent years, that notion has been replaced by the idea that words can, and should, be banned based on their connotative meanings, regardless of their actual denotative meanings.

I'll provide an example or two, shall I?

It has become common to refer to people like Vern Troyer - "Mini-Me" - as "little people." Why? Because terms like "midget" and "dwarf" are somehow derogatory.

Wrong.

Midget is a word referring to a specific medical condition in which the sufferer retains normal bodily proportions, but is very, very short - less than 3 1/2 feet tall.

Dwarf is a term referring to a specific medical condition in which the sufferer does not retain normal bodily proportions, and is often very short.

These are not derogatory; they are descriptive and - if used correctly - the correct terms for their respective conditions.

How does this apply to race?

Well, originally, the term used in the United States to refer to people of dark skin tone was "nigger," which derived from "negro," which means "black."

Denoting skin tone.

Now, thanks to its persistent usage by dumb asshats, it has become so tarred by its derogatory connotative meaning as to render it essentially unspeakable, at least in public; so we replaced it.

By calling those people of dark skin tone, "Negro," which means "black."

Since Negro SOUNDS like "nigger," that one became unacceptable as well, and was replaced.

By calling those people of dark skin tone "black," the meaning of which though inaccurate should remain obvious.

How that one - directly descriptive - became offensive, I'm not sure, but at elast through those three stages, essentially the same descriptive term was being used.

Now, we've replaced the descriptive term with one that's often totally inaccurate, which is "African-American," in theory referring to someone of African ethnic ancestry who is an American, but in fact referring to people who just got off the boat and switched citizenship; this term does not accurately apply to most people in the United States.

By virtue of the same process, we replaced the inaccurate term "Indian" with the accurate but misleading term "Native American," which isn't an improvement.

Words have meanings; "native" means "born in," which makes me as "native" as any Cherokee, thanks; I was born in Houston. An accurate description would be "Aboriginal Americans," because "aboriginal" refers to people who were present when the now-dominant culture arrived.

A less accurate descriptor would be "Indiginous Americans," but that's slightly misleading, in that it implies that the people described originated here, when in fact they emigrated from Russia over the Bering Strait land bridge in prehistoric times and are thus more accurately - haha - "Russo-Americans."

My point being, when you demonize descriptive terms, you don't change - or affect - racism. All you do is disguise it; prejudice is not resident in your terminology, it is resident in your decision-making.

That's because "prejudice" means "making decisions without information, relying solely on the stereotypical behavior of a class."

Kinda like what Obama does when he pretends that his mother didn't exist.

So. How can you actually be "post-racial," hmmm?

That's a serious question; how does one accomplish it?

Could it be by avoiding confederates who say things like "we have to make sure this stimulus money doesn't go to white male construction workers?"

Or by avoiding preachers who blame all the ills of the world on whites?

Or by acknowledging both sides of your own personal heritage?

Maybe.

You want to know why Obama is black?

Because racism is considered - connotative meaning strikes again - to be something white people do to everybody who's not white.

But racism, as a word, means "prejudice based on race," and guess what?

Saying "racism is something white people do," is a racist statement.

Maybe the way Obama could become the "post-racial" President, is by ending his own racism.

That's what I would try, in his shoes.

Another Delicious Recipe... Pepper Chicken Stir Fry

For this dish, you will need:

• 2 pieces boneless skinless chicken breast (diced)
• 2 large eggs
• 1 1/2 cups soy sauce (La Choy recommended for this recipe even though I like Kikkoman best)
• 2 tbsp olive oil
• 2 tbsp butter (1/4 stick)
• stir-fry type mixed veggies (fresh is best, frozen works)
• 2 cups white minute rice
• 1 1/2 tsp black pepper (or to taste)
• 3/8 tsp caraway seeds
• 3/8 tsp sage
• 3/8 tsp paprika

Directions:

Heat wok to 320 degrees.

Put 1 tsp olive oil in wok. Scramble the eggs. Set aside.

Put 1 tbsp butter and rest of olive oil in wok and add the chicken. Season with 1/2 tsp black pepper. 1/8 tsp caraway seeds, 1/8 tsp sage, 1/8 tsp paprika. Stir chicken continuously and make sure spices cover all chicken.

Once chicken is cooked, add veggies and 1 cup soy sauce and 1 tsp black pepper and 1/4 tsp caraway sees, 1/4 tsp sage, 1/4 tsp paprika. Stir so spices cover everything.

Reduce heat to 220 degrees.

Put lid on and let simmer while stirring occasionally.

Take rice and put in a pan big enough for rice and 2 cups water. Boil until rice is ready.

Using a slotted spoon, remove chicken and veggies from wok and put in bowl, leaving sauce in wok.

Put the rice, remaining soy sauce, remaining butter, and two eggs into the wok.

Increase heat back to 320.

Stir fry until rice is well saturated with soy sauce.

Serve with veggies and chicken over the rice. Yum.