So, it looks like someone in Hollywood reads my blog. Okay, maybe not, but it looks like the show is moving the general direction that I suggest...
According to the Hollywood Reporter the showrunner (executive producer in charge of the show) for Knight Rider is booting three of the actors (The two FBI leads, and the creator of KITT), and moving the show to more of a Michael out helping the common man, as opposed to the terrorist of the week.
Let's hope that this moves the show out of how I'd currently classify it: Seeds of awesome in a field of crap (and yet, I keep watching).
You can read the whole article at the Hollywood Reporter here
11.11.2008
11.06.2008
Little on the outside, powerful on the inside.
Let me be honest, I love our Mac Mini. It's small. It sips electricity likes no body's business (although waking from sleep has gotten a bit wonky since the last security update, it seems every other update does that). And did I mention it gets the job done. Also, it plays all my old (circa 2000 when I had money) Windows games perfectly with a shout-out to Boot Camp.
So, I was heartened to learn this.
Especially, since I keep razzing the 'rents to get a mac.
So, I was heartened to learn this.
Especially, since I keep razzing the 'rents to get a mac.
10.23.2008
Post election miscellany
Follow regarding the sex ed rant earlier, this was found in people magazine (here)
(SP is Palin)
"People: Has this changed how you talk about sex with your other children?
SP: I've always been a proponent of making sure kids understand – even in schools – they'd better take preventative measures so that they don't find themselves in these less than ideal circumstances. Perhaps Bristol could be a good example to other young women that life happens and preventative measures are, first and foremost, the option that should be considered –
People: Do you mean abstinence or contraception?
SP: Well, both. Ideally abstinence. But we have not been ones to say that students, should not know what preventive measures are all about. I've been taken aback by some criticism that mainstream media has thrown my way saying, Oh, what a hypocrite she is and she's now learned her lesson because she's been against sex education in the schools. And I'm like, when? Where? When have I ever said that there should be no sex education taught in our homes or even in our schools?"
(SP is Palin)
"People: Has this changed how you talk about sex with your other children?
SP: I've always been a proponent of making sure kids understand – even in schools – they'd better take preventative measures so that they don't find themselves in these less than ideal circumstances. Perhaps Bristol could be a good example to other young women that life happens and preventative measures are, first and foremost, the option that should be considered –
People: Do you mean abstinence or contraception?
SP: Well, both. Ideally abstinence. But we have not been ones to say that students, should not know what preventive measures are all about. I've been taken aback by some criticism that mainstream media has thrown my way saying, Oh, what a hypocrite she is and she's now learned her lesson because she's been against sex education in the schools. And I'm like, when? Where? When have I ever said that there should be no sex education taught in our homes or even in our schools?"
10.10.2008
How I'd fix Knight Rider
Like a glutton for punishment, I keep watching the new Knight Rider hoping that it'll get better. Why? Nostalgia for the past, perhaps. Wanting some mindless popcorn show (if you don't know what that means, ask Roger Ebert). Regardless, the show can do better.
First off, I'd ditch their reliance on the "KittCave." Now, I'm not saying that the cave itself is a bad idea, but so far they've returned to it several times an episode. It's like they can't have a mission that's farther than 100 miles from LAX (or wherever the undisclosed airport is). That was part of the appeal of the original series, that Michael was on his own. Related to that, note to bad guys (who are apparently technically sophisticated): keep an eye on the spy satellites and find the hangar that a black mustang keeps going in and out of.
Now, I thought the C-130 was a great spin on the semi from the original series, but they should bring the semi back. The C-130 is too impractical to always use for remote launches, and not exactly inconspicuous. Make the semi (and possibly even the C-130) a mobile KittCave. Also, KITT should not be spinning out everytime he pulls out of the plane. Think of the tires! Is it so hard to go the same direction? What a waste of kinetic energy.
Related to the KittCave and the team concept that appears to be working at the moment, Michael Knight should work alone. I'm not opposed to Sarah accompanying him on missions, and the tension there is fun, but this constant viewscreen crap is just that. First, its creepy that the driver and passenger can be watched at any time. Second, it's a great example of distracted driving and someone is going to get killed. Move the display to the center console like the movie.
The viewscreen gives me a chance to transition to my other peeve: KITT. Look, I get that he's a supercar. But he can do too much. We run the risk of what I'll call Superman syndrome. What's that you ask? Simply put: what can't Superman do. In the Golden Age of Comics, Superman turned back time and moved the sun. Suddenly, thug robbing bank is pretty insignificant. I'm all for cool new technology. Heck, I even let the transforming into a truck slide (although conservation of mass suggests that it should be a regular cab, not an extended cab). Hacking into a satellite, fine. Hearing a conversation over the next hill, less plausible. Embedded screen on the hood, fine. Creating a duplicate of a key which likely requires an RFID to work, um, no.
While I'm at it, why does everything have to be a voice command with KITT. Sure, that's cool and all, but let's say Sarah and Michael are both sitting in the car, is there a hierarchy of command in that case? Is someone calling from the KittCave able to activate it? Is it so darn hard to push a button! And a pet peeve: It's Pursuit Mode, not Attack Mode. KITT doesn't attack, he chases really fast. (I'd let Assault Mode slide, but not Attack)
Now, I don't have a problem with a team backing up Michael. To a point. If it's an opportunity to mix and match who goes with on a mission, great. If it's to provide childish or teenage humor, not so much. The original show wasn't a comedy, don't make this into one. And what's with the mysterious guy from DHS/FBI/I'm not sure. In the pilot they make it out to be a partnership with the FBI and Knight Industries. Suddenly, Michael is taking orders because he has to for no apparent reason. I can only hope the show gets awesome when Michael turns on him.
Like I mentioned before the show's plot needs work. Michael's past could be interesting, but not required every week, unless that's what the show wants to focus on. I don't need a perv (sorry, Billy), or a tease (sorry girl who teases Billy whose name I don't remember). Do your job, and if there's a chance to inject personality, we'll get there. I like girls in bikinis as much as the next guy, but that's not a plot. It's scenery.
Call me Hollywood, I'll help save the show.
First off, I'd ditch their reliance on the "KittCave." Now, I'm not saying that the cave itself is a bad idea, but so far they've returned to it several times an episode. It's like they can't have a mission that's farther than 100 miles from LAX (or wherever the undisclosed airport is). That was part of the appeal of the original series, that Michael was on his own. Related to that, note to bad guys (who are apparently technically sophisticated): keep an eye on the spy satellites and find the hangar that a black mustang keeps going in and out of.
Now, I thought the C-130 was a great spin on the semi from the original series, but they should bring the semi back. The C-130 is too impractical to always use for remote launches, and not exactly inconspicuous. Make the semi (and possibly even the C-130) a mobile KittCave. Also, KITT should not be spinning out everytime he pulls out of the plane. Think of the tires! Is it so hard to go the same direction? What a waste of kinetic energy.
Related to the KittCave and the team concept that appears to be working at the moment, Michael Knight should work alone. I'm not opposed to Sarah accompanying him on missions, and the tension there is fun, but this constant viewscreen crap is just that. First, its creepy that the driver and passenger can be watched at any time. Second, it's a great example of distracted driving and someone is going to get killed. Move the display to the center console like the movie.
The viewscreen gives me a chance to transition to my other peeve: KITT. Look, I get that he's a supercar. But he can do too much. We run the risk of what I'll call Superman syndrome. What's that you ask? Simply put: what can't Superman do. In the Golden Age of Comics, Superman turned back time and moved the sun. Suddenly, thug robbing bank is pretty insignificant. I'm all for cool new technology. Heck, I even let the transforming into a truck slide (although conservation of mass suggests that it should be a regular cab, not an extended cab). Hacking into a satellite, fine. Hearing a conversation over the next hill, less plausible. Embedded screen on the hood, fine. Creating a duplicate of a key which likely requires an RFID to work, um, no.
While I'm at it, why does everything have to be a voice command with KITT. Sure, that's cool and all, but let's say Sarah and Michael are both sitting in the car, is there a hierarchy of command in that case? Is someone calling from the KittCave able to activate it? Is it so darn hard to push a button! And a pet peeve: It's Pursuit Mode, not Attack Mode. KITT doesn't attack, he chases really fast. (I'd let Assault Mode slide, but not Attack)
Now, I don't have a problem with a team backing up Michael. To a point. If it's an opportunity to mix and match who goes with on a mission, great. If it's to provide childish or teenage humor, not so much. The original show wasn't a comedy, don't make this into one. And what's with the mysterious guy from DHS/FBI/I'm not sure. In the pilot they make it out to be a partnership with the FBI and Knight Industries. Suddenly, Michael is taking orders because he has to for no apparent reason. I can only hope the show gets awesome when Michael turns on him.
Like I mentioned before the show's plot needs work. Michael's past could be interesting, but not required every week, unless that's what the show wants to focus on. I don't need a perv (sorry, Billy), or a tease (sorry girl who teases Billy whose name I don't remember). Do your job, and if there's a chance to inject personality, we'll get there. I like girls in bikinis as much as the next guy, but that's not a plot. It's scenery.
Call me Hollywood, I'll help save the show.
9.19.2008
Sometimes it gets it right.
My pirate name is:
Mad Jack Bonney
Every pirate is a little bit crazy. You, though, are more than just a little bit. You can be a little bit unpredictable, but a pirate's life is far from full of certainties, so that fits in pretty well. Arr!
Get your own pirate name from piratequiz.com.
part of the fidius.org network
9.16.2008
Colin Powell rocks, but we knew that.
Colin Powell's comments when asked about the presidential candidates:
"...but at the same time, we have to make a judgment here ... which of the candidates blends a right measure of experience and judgment? I have been watching both of these individuals, and I know them both extremely well and I have not decided who I’m going to vote for yet.”
Powell said he wants to watch the debates, look at the party platforms, and focus on substance. "We've got to get off this lipstick on a pig stuff," he said to loud applause.
When one of the moderators asked Powell whether this vote was personal to him since he was the first African-American Secretary of State, his answer sparked wild applause. "I'm an American first and foremost," he said.
Powell explained to the audience that he told McCain he would not vote for him just because they have been friends for 25 years, and he told Obama he would not vote for him just because he is black. He said he will look at who has the best economic policies, who inspires the most confidence in the country and around the world, and who will keep America safe.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/15/1403219.aspx
"...but at the same time, we have to make a judgment here ... which of the candidates blends a right measure of experience and judgment? I have been watching both of these individuals, and I know them both extremely well and I have not decided who I’m going to vote for yet.”
Powell said he wants to watch the debates, look at the party platforms, and focus on substance. "We've got to get off this lipstick on a pig stuff," he said to loud applause.
When one of the moderators asked Powell whether this vote was personal to him since he was the first African-American Secretary of State, his answer sparked wild applause. "I'm an American first and foremost," he said.
Powell explained to the audience that he told McCain he would not vote for him just because they have been friends for 25 years, and he told Obama he would not vote for him just because he is black. He said he will look at who has the best economic policies, who inspires the most confidence in the country and around the world, and who will keep America safe.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/15/1403219.aspx
9.04.2008
Addendum
Let me just start this off by saying: Holy crap, I agree with Cindy McCain.
"I taught my children at home about this. I believe that the message should come from the parents and from the family. With that said, our school offered sex education, and I was a large advocate for all — also offering abstinence in sex education. I believe it's two-fold, and I think all of it should be taught," she said.
For the full relevant article: click here
Now, I'll admit I'm not a huge Cindy McCain fan, but I'm glad to know she's in the comprehensive sex ed party.
"I taught my children at home about this. I believe that the message should come from the parents and from the family. With that said, our school offered sex education, and I was a large advocate for all — also offering abstinence in sex education. I believe it's two-fold, and I think all of it should be taught," she said.
For the full relevant article: click here
Now, I'll admit I'm not a huge Cindy McCain fan, but I'm glad to know she's in the comprehensive sex ed party.
9.02.2008
Not quite a year, but close
So, I've been a bit more than lackadaisical in my posting, but I haven't had much to say lately. You'd think with the life and death going on in the house (baby's birth, putting Cadet to sleep), heck even buying the house I'd have more to say, but I don't. Until today.
Once again it's politics that inspires me to write, but perhaps not what everyone is focusing on of late. I won't hide what I'm thinking, I'm planning to vote for Obama for so many reasons. But McCain's choice of a running mate fascinates me. I fear it may be more like a moth to a flame than anything else. As usual it takes someone else to point out the realities of the situation.
My co-worker, who had a bet with her husband that McCain would pick a woman, partly in an attempt to steal away disenfranchised female voters. Frankly, that makes no sense to me if they're even remotely voting on the issues, as Hiliary is well established on the "left" and Gov. Palin on the "right." I have no intention of changing my vote because Obama is / picked a male. My wife, probably rightly, felt that this selection was a desire to simply own the news cycle. For the female perspective look here. The sad part of me wonders if Palin's daughter is part of this desire to own the cycle. For better or worse, it's geting people talking and dominating the news cycles. I say its sad because I hope that's not the reason, and its sad that there's that shred of doubt.
I'm also fascinated by the possible scandal unfolding in Alaska: see this for more info. I emphasize possible because (at the time of posting) this is not a sealed case, and it is honestly possible that there was no wrongdoing. It just seems risky to me to even choose someone with this possibility.
But for me the far more pressing issue is Palin's daughter's pregnancy. An appropriate link here. Now this is not to pass judgement on parenting skills or her daughter's choices. What it does make me question is the policy choices of this ticket. It can best be summed up in the linked article:
"If we want to talk about sex and politics, how about talking about whether or not the candidates defend comprehensive sex education, or favor abstinence-only sex education? Data has debunked the abstinence-only approach as wishful thinking.
Texas, for example, which strongly endorses abstinence-only, and demands parental consent before teenagers can get contraception, leads the nation in its rate of teen pregnancies, dropping only by 19 percent from 1991 to 2004 while the rest of country dropped by over 30 percent. Meanwhile in California, where comprehensive sex-education is mandatory in public schools, the teen pregnancy rate dropped by 47 percent."
Without even getting into the merits of premarital sex (which is frankly a personal, moral choice NOT a political one), could this child have been prevented by comprehensive sex education? Honestly, we don't know if she knew about contraceptive techniques and chose to ignore them, or was unaware. I just feel every person should have all the tools available to them.
This turn of events, more than the abortion issue, brings to the forefront the issue of comprehensive sex education. I wholeheartedly agree with Sen. Obama's nomination speech when he said: "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country." Again, we may never know if this case was a wanted or unwanted pregnancy, and I don't think the Governor's daughter should be made into a poster child for unwanted pregnancies (just like I believe she shouldn't be made into one for the pro-life crowd either). And I firmly agree with Obama as I heard him say this morning that candidate's family, especially children are off limits. It does raise the issue of sex ed, and I just think we should talk about it.
Once again it's politics that inspires me to write, but perhaps not what everyone is focusing on of late. I won't hide what I'm thinking, I'm planning to vote for Obama for so many reasons. But McCain's choice of a running mate fascinates me. I fear it may be more like a moth to a flame than anything else. As usual it takes someone else to point out the realities of the situation.
My co-worker, who had a bet with her husband that McCain would pick a woman, partly in an attempt to steal away disenfranchised female voters. Frankly, that makes no sense to me if they're even remotely voting on the issues, as Hiliary is well established on the "left" and Gov. Palin on the "right." I have no intention of changing my vote because Obama is / picked a male. My wife, probably rightly, felt that this selection was a desire to simply own the news cycle. For the female perspective look here. The sad part of me wonders if Palin's daughter is part of this desire to own the cycle. For better or worse, it's geting people talking and dominating the news cycles. I say its sad because I hope that's not the reason, and its sad that there's that shred of doubt.
I'm also fascinated by the possible scandal unfolding in Alaska: see this for more info. I emphasize possible because (at the time of posting) this is not a sealed case, and it is honestly possible that there was no wrongdoing. It just seems risky to me to even choose someone with this possibility.
But for me the far more pressing issue is Palin's daughter's pregnancy. An appropriate link here. Now this is not to pass judgement on parenting skills or her daughter's choices. What it does make me question is the policy choices of this ticket. It can best be summed up in the linked article:
"If we want to talk about sex and politics, how about talking about whether or not the candidates defend comprehensive sex education, or favor abstinence-only sex education? Data has debunked the abstinence-only approach as wishful thinking.
Texas, for example, which strongly endorses abstinence-only, and demands parental consent before teenagers can get contraception, leads the nation in its rate of teen pregnancies, dropping only by 19 percent from 1991 to 2004 while the rest of country dropped by over 30 percent. Meanwhile in California, where comprehensive sex-education is mandatory in public schools, the teen pregnancy rate dropped by 47 percent."
Without even getting into the merits of premarital sex (which is frankly a personal, moral choice NOT a political one), could this child have been prevented by comprehensive sex education? Honestly, we don't know if she knew about contraceptive techniques and chose to ignore them, or was unaware. I just feel every person should have all the tools available to them.
This turn of events, more than the abortion issue, brings to the forefront the issue of comprehensive sex education. I wholeheartedly agree with Sen. Obama's nomination speech when he said: "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country." Again, we may never know if this case was a wanted or unwanted pregnancy, and I don't think the Governor's daughter should be made into a poster child for unwanted pregnancies (just like I believe she shouldn't be made into one for the pro-life crowd either). And I firmly agree with Obama as I heard him say this morning that candidate's family, especially children are off limits. It does raise the issue of sex ed, and I just think we should talk about it.
