We Stand With Him

Tiananmen Square, June 5, 1989 (photo by Jeff Widener)

In one of the rooms in my high school, there was a poster with a sketch of this image of Tiananmen Sqaure, with the words "We Stand With Him" underneath it. Every time I had a class in that room, I would look at that poster, and want to be that lone man against the tanks.

I didn't know who that man was, or what he was protesting. I didn't know that it portrayed the Tiananmen Square protests, and even if I had, I wouldn't have known where Tiananmen Square was. My history classes never got much past 1940, and there was then the mad dash through 6 decades in the last two weeks of school, most of which was spent watching Forrest Gump. No, I'm not kidding. That's honestly how we learned about the 60s and 70s for the AP US History test.

But even though I didn't know what the poster was about, it inspired in me a greater sense of civic duty and pride than any American flag or yellow ribbon on an SUV ever has. Here was someone who was willing to stand up for what he believed in, even though it would most likely cost him his life. He had found something that was worth dying for, and he had made his choice with more than just words or empty promises--he was laying his physical body on the line.

Now I know more about these protests. Students gathered to mourn the death of former Secretary General Hu Yaobang, a Chinese government official whose views in favor of reform made him the perfect rallying point for those who were looking for a more liberal, democratic China. Hundreds of thousands of students marched on Tiananmen Square throughout April and May, often joined by professors and urban workers, who were concerned with inflation and corruption. A hunger strike of at least 1000 students was enacted, and the protests escalated to such a degree that martial law was declared on May 20, 1989. The army moved into Tiananmen Square where, on June 5, 1989, this lone man was immortalized in one of the most famous photographs of the 20th century.

Yes, it's notable the this man was protesting for a more democratic society. But to be honest, I would admire the man regardless of what he was protesting. He had chosen to stand up by himself. He was not being sent on the errand of a government too cowardly to go themselves. And he didn't protest with guns, or bombs, or suicide trucks. He protested by simply standing up.

Doesn't it make you wonder--what could you accomplish if you would just stand up?

I, too, stand with him.

Tera's Random Thoughts for Thursday

None of these things is big enough to warrant its own post, but maybe together, they'll add up to something profound...ok, something mildly interesting.

First off, I was watching The Daily Show with John Stewart two nights ago, and all of a sudden, there's a new guest host segment hosted by Demetri Martin!! Who's Demetri Martin? He's this dry, understated comedian who I've seen on Comedy Central's Friday Night Standup, and I think he's hilarious. I really like how The Daily Show is becoming this generation's SNL--it seems that it is where young comedians go to get their foot in the door to television or the movies. It kind of makes me feel better about how SNL is no longer either funny or cool. At any rate, I hope Martin is a permanent addition to the show, rather than a one-time guest.

Also on The Daily Show was Bruce Willis, promoting his new movie Live Free or Die Hard. They showed a clip of him with his nerdy sidekick--the guy from the Mac ads. You know the one? He's ubiquitous these days--I'm sure you recognize his face. Not only is he in the Mac ads, but he was the nerdy kid in GalaxyQuest and the nerdy kid in Dodgeball. Oh, and he was the slacker-turned-nerd in Accepted and the nerdy kid on the TV show Ed. I kind of feel sorry for this guy because I don't know his name; I just know him as the nerdy guy. But then I realize he's getting paid a gajillion dollars to be the nerdy guy, so the feeling passes.

I looked it up. His name is Justin Long. But I won't remember.

Moving on to something completely unrelated...is anyone else completely confused by those Airwick commercials involving cartoon animals? It's this series of ads for an air freshener that automatically releases fragrance, to save you time and effort. One ad has an octopus married to a centipede, and his shoes stink up the house so badly that her 8 arms aren't enough to do all the work--she needs an Airwick too. And then there's the one where the giraffe has two teenage warthog sons, who are such filthy slobs that she can't keep up with their messes. Playing off animal traits to make a point is cute and all, but mixing them all together is weird and confusing, and makes me think about logistical questions rather than about the effectiveness of Airwick as an air freshener. How can an octopus live out of water? Isn't the size difference between the centipede and the octopus a problem? Why are the children of these hybrid couples non-hybrids? Shouldn't the warthogs have long necks? Already I've spent way too much time on this, but I just can't stop wondering...

And to end today's post, I'd like to tell you about my neighbor's dog, Max. I'm not really a dog person, to be honest. I'm pretty sure that I'll never get a dog, although many of my friends have dogs that are quite cute and charming. But I feel sorry for Max. Max is a black lab (I think), and he lives in a townhouse association where the houses don't have yards of their own. There's plenty of common green space around the association, but none that belongs to individual residents. So, as a result, poor Max ends up tethered to the front railing of his house for several hours a day, where he sits close to the sidewalk and morosely watches the people who are walking by. Honestly, I've never seen a dog look this sad. And he's out there in all sorts of weather. If it's 95 and humid, he's outside. If it's 20 below and snowing, he's outside. Last winter, my husband and I got so concerned for the welfare of this dog that we actually wrote the owners a letter, suggesting they find a more sheltered place for him to hang out. I'm not sure exactly why I'm telling you this, except to point out that big dogs need space, and that if you don't have the space for a big dog, then perhaps it's not the pet for you. And because I feel sorry for Max, and want him to have good vibes sent his way.

The Life of Pi

I picked up this book because I had heard from several people that it was good, and also because it won the Mann Booker Prize, and so any late 20th/21st century fiction scholar worth her salt better read it. I bought it, put it on my shelf, and then forgot about it in craziness of writing my dissertation.

As a quick aside--I think that for those writing or researching dissertations, that process is much like deciding which college you want to go to during your senior year of high school. It's stressful, you don't really want to think about it if you don't have to, there's the pressure of deadlines, and it's what everybody always asks you about. I'm honestly grateful for all those who show interest in what I'm working on, especially considering that when I eventually try to publish it after I graduate, if it gets published, six people will buy it and they will all be related to me. But it just feels that right now, my whole life is hanging on me finishing this thing, and I'd do anything to not think about the deadlines that are looming closer and closer. So if at some point, you ask "How's the dissertation?" and I scowl at you and say something snarky, please understand that it's nothing personal :)

Anyways, back to The Life of Pi. I picked it up two nights ago when I was stressing out about everything I had to do and I couldn't fall asleep. I needed to read something NOT related to my dissertation, and I finally remembered this book sitting on my shelf. And before I knew it, I was 40 pages into it.

It's a really fast, interesting read. I bogged down a little in the middle because it seemed slightly repetitive, but things picked up again quickly. Basically, the novel tells the story of Pi Patel, whose family is moving from India to Canada via freighter. The freighter sinks, and Pi ends up stranded on a lifeboat with a fully grown Bengal tiger.

This book will be interesting for those who enjoy survival stories, but it's much more than that. Before Pi moves to Canada, he has become a devout follower of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Thinking about how his religious beliefs connect with the survival narrative that follows is thought-provoking and insightful.

Plus, who doesn't like a book filled with wild animals? It's the same sort of excitement as going to the zoo, without having to leave the comfort of your own home.

Recent Netflix rentals

Short notes on movies I've seen recently:

The Illusionist isn't bad. It does a good job of building up to a climax, the magic tricks are cool, and the acting seems pretty good. The biggest problem with this movie is that it was released around the same time as The Prestige, another magic movie that I really enjoyed. The Prestige explained how all the tricks were done; in The Illusionist, most of the tricks you see Edward Norton's character perform are simply left unexplained. And even though I could see the ending of the movie coming, the details of how we got to the ending weren't explained either, which was frustrating to me. Oh, and the accents were weird. Apparently, everyone's idea of an Austrian accent is something completely different.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Well, I'm not really sure what to say about Sin City. I loved the way that it was filmed--I thought it was really cool, and I was impressed by how the movie took a lot of comic book clichés and made them new and exciting by putting them onto film. Some of the casting choices were cool, too--Elijah Wood is cast as an incredibly creepy villain, which goes against all your ideas of him as a hobbit and the All-Star shoes he wears in the film. /shudder. But the thing is, it was really violent. And I wasn't really expecting that. I mean, I knew it was dark, but I guess I wasn't expecting the unrelenting stream of very horrible images that assailed me. Maybe I'm just a baby, but I couldn't handle it--I ended up turning off the movie about halfway through.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5

Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite movies, and one of my favorite overall love stories (see here). Honestly, I'm not normally a Keira Knightley fan (sorry, K.)--I get distracted by her teeth, which I think are pointy and make her look like a vampire. But she does a fantastic job as Elizabeth Bennet, as does Matthew MacFayden as Mr. Darcy, and I'm impressed by their chemistry. But the thing that really makes the movie stunning is the cinematography and the soundtrack. The sweeping shots of the English countryside give the story a drama and seriousness that adds to the passion between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. And best of all, the story is true to the novel, and manages to capture the wonderful sense of humor that Jane Austen brings to her novels.

Rating: 5 stars out of 5

My husband and his brothers are huge fans of the movie Supertroopers. And so we've checked out all the other movies done by this comedy group (Broken Lizard), which include their first movie Puddle Cruiser and Club Dread. Puddle Cruiser was rough around the edges, but the talents of Broken Lizard showed through well; Club Dread was just pretty bad across the board. Beerfest is the latest movie put out by this group, and it ranks right up there with Supertroopers. I'm not sure it has the potential for quoting lines that Supertroopers does, but it's very funny, especially when you've been drinking. And the "German" guys are hilarious, no question about it. I think they stole the show.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5

Cool or Creepy?

Damien Hirst, a British artist, just had one of his works sell at a Sotheby's auction for 9.65 million pounds. For those of us who are of the American persuasion, that's close to $20 million. News organizations are making a fuss about this because it has set the record for the most paid for the work of a living artist at an auction.

So what is this $20 million piece of art? It's a medicine cabinet. A 9-foot wide medicine cabinet filled with 6, 136 individually painted pills entitled "Lullaby Spring." The picture to the right shows just a section of the rows upon rows of colorful little pills.

Now, I have to admit--I first stumbled across this story because I saw this picture on Yahoo pictures, and thought it looked really cool. All sorts of different colorful objects, all in the same place? Pretty! And i can certainly appreciate how long it would take to individually craft 6000+ tiny pills, particularly if many were as intricately painted as the big black one in the upper left of the picture.

The more I think about it, though, the less I would like to have this work of art in my house. Forget the nightmare of cleaning it, I'm starting to see the whole work as slightly sinister. I'm not Tom Cruise or anything, but I do think that our society tends to use pills as a quick fix for many problems, instead of looking to fix the root cause of those problems. It seems that this piece could easily be read as a glorification of fixing any and all problem with pills. And when I think about this in combination with the title--"Lullaby Spring"--it makes me even more hesitant to like it. "Lullaby" is a word of comfort, of soothing, of trying to ease the concerns of the world away so that you can rest. And "spring" suggests new life, a new start. But if you can only get that comfort and that new start through prescription (or other) drugs, at the expense of forgetting the real things in your life, is it really worth it? Is that a healthy way to live?

It's entirely possible that I'm over-reading the entire piece (grad students tend to do that) but even so, the sale of this piece for close to $20 million highlights another disturbing trend--the ever growing gap between the haves and the have-nots. When another work from this Hirst series sold in February, it went for $7.4 million; 5 years ago, that same piece had been sold for only $1.1 million. Bill Bonner writes, "The inflation in contemporary art is breathtaking; it illustrates how nouveau and how riche the nouveau riche really are."

And that's perhaps the biggest problem with Damien Hirst's "Lullaby Spring"--that there are people out there who can and do pay $20 million without blinking an eye for the work of an artist who has not yet stood the test of time. And when the world is set up in such a way so that these people can exist alongside those who are working two jobs just so their kids can have clothes and food, there's something wrong with that picture.

Boy, this blog has gotten kinda serious lately...I should post on Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan to balance things out...Here's a picture, maybe that will help:

Carbon Emission Awareness

I'm not the greenest person on the planet. Far from it. I have lousy habits, like leaving my computer on when I'm not using it. And I'm sure the last thing many of you want from my blog is to get preached at about ways that you can save the planet. Enough information is out there that you all can make decisions on your own about whether you think global warming is a big deal and what you want to do to stop it.

From my perspective, though, the amount of carbon dioxide that humans pump into the atmosphere is a pretty big deal. A few weeks ago on NPR, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin made some remarks that really rankled some top climate change scientists. When asked if he thought global warming was a problem that humanity had to wrestle with, he said:

I have no doubt that global – that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had, and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.

First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I’m – I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.

His point, that we may not know if this particular climate is the best possible one, is certainly a valid one. But doesn't it seem like an extremely awful risk to take to assume that it isn't? Human settlements around the globe all depend on the climate being a certain way in order to survive and prosper. I certainly don't want to be the one to tell orange growers in Florida, "I'm sorry, you can't grow oranges anymore because it's too warm. You'll have to find another way to make money. Oh, and by the way, you'll need to build a new house, because the one you currently have won't shield you from the heat well."

It seems to me that that's an arrogant position as well--that just because there are other possibilities out there, we shouldn't work to protect the possibility that we currently have and on which so many people depend to survive.

The other thing that Griffin said that struck me as odd was his claim that it's not within the power of humans to assure that the climate won't change. Sure, there are certainly things that are beyond our control. Planetary movements, changes in the output of the sun, volcanic activities--yes, these are all things I would consider beyond human control. But there are things contributing to climate change that are within human control, like our carbon emissions. And while I agree that we can't completely prevent climate change, we should also work to not actively contribute to it either.

I like the world that we have, and I think a lot of other people do, too. I want my grandkids to be able to enjoy snow in Minnesota in the winter. I want penguins and polar bears to exist outside of zoos. I want people who struggle to make a living along the oceans' coasts to not lose their homes because the water has risen and covered their homes.

And so that's why I've put the carbon emissions counter on my blog. It's easy for me to forget how simple things that I do every day can contribute to an issue that has global impacts. And so I'm working on being more green. I've started hanging the laundry out on lines instead of using the clothes dryer. We've put our TV and stereo on a timer, so that it's not on standby for most of the day, just using power while waiting to be turned on. For our trip to Europe in August, I've started looking at the possibility of offsetting the carbon emissions from our flight through a website like carbonfund.org. It's not a whole lot, but it's a start.

And maybe, someday soon, I'll remember to turn off my computer when I'm not using it.

Wuv...Tru Wuv...

The word love inspires many thoughts, images, and songs. Classic love stories, like Romeo and Juliet, Tristan and Isolde, Helen and Paris, Anthony and Cleopatra. Images of love, like Rodin's sculpture The Kiss. Movies about love, like The Princess Bride or An Affair to Remember. Songs about love, whether it's Unchained Melodies or the Adagietto section from Mahler's 5th Symphony.

It's often a very personal thing--what suggests love to one person doesn't mean much of anything to another. Here's my top 5 list of depictions of true love--in literature, film, and song:

5. The story of Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot. Two tellings of the story in particular capture what I think is most poignant about this myth--the movie First Knight and Guy Gavriel Kay's retelling in The Fionavar Tapestry. Both of these versions show that all three people in this love triangle loved each other equally, although perhaps differently, and that in spite of being hurt and betrayed, they continued loving each other.

4. The movie Cinema Paradiso. One of my favorite movies ever, this Italian film not only tells the story of Toto's young love, but also the story of the power of love in shaping both the movies and our own lives.

3. The "Saturday Night Waltz" movement from Aaron Copland's ballet Rodeo. I've played the piece in orchestra several times, and each time, the piece sounded like what it's like to fall in love. It's what I walked down the aisle to at my wedding.

2. Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. I love the novel and the recent movie with Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfayden. The relationship between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy progresses throughout the novel to a point where they regard each other as equals--both intellectually and socially--in spite of very different upbringings. And that respect provides the foundation for their love.

1. But for me, The Boss said it best in his song "Thunder Road":

The screen door slams
Mary's dress sways
Like a vision she dances across the porch
As the radio plays
Roy Orbison singing for the lonely
Hey that's me and I want you only
Don't turn me home again
I just can't face myself alone again
Don't run back inside
Darling you know just what I'm here for
So you're scared and you're thinking
That maybe we ain't that young anymore
Show a little faith, there's magic in the night
You ain't a beauty, but hey you're alright
Oh, and that's alright with me

The very real deatils of the setting--the noise of the door, the song on the radio--show that this man is firmly rooted in reality, and that his love isn't a flash in the pan. And most importantly, he acknowledges that his lover isn't perfect, but that he loves her in spite of, or perhaps because of her imperfections.

And that's what I think true love is--recognizing someone for who he or she really is--faults and all--and loving them because of that. I've been lucky enough to find that--Happy Anniversary, A :)

Timeless literature

I recently finished Guy Gavriel Kay's book Ysabel, which is a great read for those of you who enjoy fantasy literature, and particularly for those of you who enjoyed Kay's series The Fionavar Tapestry. It's a very well-written book that does what Kay does best--lyrically hint at mythic, cyclical, epic significance without coming straight out and saying it.

That said, there was something about the book that struck me as just a little bit off, and I wasn't quite sure what to make of it. The novel is set in the Provence region in France in today's time. After visiting the cathedral in Aix-en-Provence, teenage Ned Marriner comes into contact with several people who are important figures in ancient history and legend. Throughout the novel, if he and his friend Kate need to find out something about history or myth, they rush straight to the Internet--Google is mentioned at least 20 times as their source of information. And everyone is always reaching for their cell phones; there's even a running joke throughout the novel regarding ringtones.

Kay's use of today's technology in his novel really makes for a stark juxtaposition between the present and the past, sometimes to great effect. But at the same time, I can't help wondering if his reliance on this technology--technology that probably won't be cutting-edge in 10 months, let alone 10 years--will ultimately undermine his efforts to highlight the relationship between the real present and the fantastic past. In 20 years, will anyone remember what the verb "googling" means? Will cell phones be a thing of the past, since everyone has chips implanted in their brains? I don't mean this to be a post predicting radical changes in our lives in 20 years, but I do think that technology is changing and developing at such a rapid rate that the technology we use today will be outdated in 5 years, not to mention 20.

And so, while Kay's invocation of cell phones and Google is a great shorthand for those reading the novel in 2007, I think that in 20 or 30 years, the novel won't be as powerful, since these bits of technology will no longer be able to bring to mind the cutting edge of the present. The novel will still be interesting and well-written, but the contrast between past and present won't be as dramatic. And so the novel will lose some of its force.

Julia Turner has written something similar about the Harry Potter series, arguing that Rowling is able to create such an overwhelming feeling of terror in connection with Voldemort by invoking the language and imagery of the current war on terror and Osama bin Laden. Her hope and fear for the Harry Potter series is the same as mine for Kay's novel--she doesn't want the series to lose its power, but at the same time, she's afraid that by using this cultural shorthand, the novels will lose their impact on future readers. Rereading the series, I can see where her concerns come from, particularly in later novels such as The Order of the Phoenix. Things familiar to us because of the current political climate--governmental handouts on what to do to be safe, newspapers printing things they want us to believe, rather than the truth, prisoners being held without trial, an invisible, untrackable enemy--all show up in Harry Potter to add to the feeling of terror and fear in the reader.

I think Potter fans have less to worry about than fans of Kay's novel Ysabel. As many people have noted, warfare has changed drastically in the 21st century, and terrorism seems to be the new face of war. And no one is going to forget the events of September 11, 2001 for many years. Even when Google is long gone, this date in history will still be remembered at least in history books.

Will Harry Potter Die?

Well, the wait is nearly over. In one month, the final Harry Potter book will be delivered to my doorstep, and I will finally know how the series concludes. I am really, really excited. I can guarantee that I will drop everything I'm doing to read that book as soon as I get it. Dishes will go neglected, my phone will be unanswered, and I'll probably forget to eat.

The rest of the world seems similarly excited. Many questions are being tossed around on the hundreds, probably thousands, of forums that are discussing this final book--Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Will Harry go back to Hogwarts? Who is R.A.B., the mysterious wizard who destroyed the Horcrux that Harry found the night Dumbledore died? Is Snape really evil, or is he part of a bigger plan for overall good?

The biggest questions, however, surround the question of who is going to die in this final installment. Rowling herself has said that two main characters will die in Deathly Hallows; fans of the series are beside themselves, wanting to know if Harry is one of these two. Rowling made a comment that added further fuel to the fire, saying, "I can completely understand, however, the mentality of an author who thinks, 'Well, I'm gonna kill them off because that means there can be no non-author-written sequels. So it will end with me, and after I'm dead and gone they won't be able to bring back the character'." I can certainly understand her sentiment--poor Margaret Mitchell is probably still rolling over in her grave because of the atrocious sequel to Gone with the Wind called Scarlett. But Rowling hasn't gone so far as to say whether or not Harry actual dies.

The general consensus seems to be that he will--British bookie William Hill has stopped taking bets on the question, since so many people have bet that Harry will die, that it would be like giving money away. Apparently, he is now taking bets on who will kill Harry.

As I suggested earlier on this blog, I don't agree with these people. I think Harry will live. I think Voldemort will die. And I'm more sure about the latter than the former. I'm 100% sure that Voldemort has to die, otherwise...well, otherwise the whole series will be about the ultimate triumph of evil over good. And that would undermine so much of what Rowling has included in her novels about how love is the most powerful kind of magic, that Voldemort has never understood love, and that Dumbledore will always be around for those who need him. Rowling has been building up to the ultimate triumph of good over evil throughout the entire series, and if she were to let Voldemort live, that would undermine the logical sense of the series.

I'm slightly less sure that Harry will live. Some people think that Harry is the final Horcrux, and that in order to destroy Voldemort, Harry will have to destroy himself first. This would be an interesting parallel to the first book, in which Ron uses the queen's sacrifice in the giant chess game, allowing Harry to get through to the Sorcerer's Stone and Voldemort. Although this time, Ron (or Hermione) would probably be the one who would defeat Voldemort. I think this theory has possibilities, but I'm pretty sure that Voldemort would want to make sure that he had all his Horcruxes firmly in place before going to kill "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord." Also, I really don't want Harry to die. And I think that Rowling knows this--not about me personally, but about her readers. I'm not saying she'll sell out to her readers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the question of "What will happen if I kill off Harry?" crossed her mind while writing, and played into her ultimate decision.

I have several ideas of who the second person is who will end up dying. Snape seems like a good bet, since his death could be what ultimately shows his loyalty to the Order and to Dumbledore. I think there's still a lot we don't know about Snape--including why Dumbledore trusted him; Harry's explanation of this at the end of book 7 just doesn't hold water. His death for a greater cause--either good or evil--would help clear up these questions.

I also think that one of Harry's close friends could be the second major death. The reason this option seems the most likely is because it would allow the series to end on an ambiguously positive note without Harry dying. For example, if Ron were to sacrifice himself to save Harry, this would create all sorts of complicated emotions on Harry's part that would be in line with the developing emotional complexity of the series.

Regardless of what happens, I am extremely interested to see how Rowling resolves the series. I would love for an unequivocally happy ending, but I think that will be very difficult to pull off given the way each book develops the theme that Harry is a wizard set apart, a wizard with a terrible past and an uncertain future. Certainly, the book could just end with Voldemort and Draco dying, and nothing happening to the "good" side, but that wouldn't ring true with the world Rowling has created, in which both sides of the battle suffer losses. But on the other hand, she can't go too far in the other direction either, since, like I mentioned above, that wouldn't follow the logical progression of the rest of the series.

So, what do you all think? Does Harry die? How will the series end?

Quarters!

I'm not a person who formally collects coins; my dad tried to give my collection a jump-start when I was younger, but I just never got into it. I think the minutia of looking at dates and tiny mint marks was just not exciting enough for me.

When I went to Germany and saw the Euro coins, though, that was different. The different designs on the back of the coins, each with some significance to the country it came from--now that was exciting! During my year abroad, I worked to collect all the Euros there were at the time; it was the most difficult to get ones from countries I hadn't visited, such as Portugal and Finland. I still remember how excited I was when I realized the woman in front of me in line at the tourist office in Amsterdam was from Finland. I swapped my German Euros for her Finnish ones.

I was similarly excited about the US 50 State Quarters program. Again, these were coins with very noticeable differences, which made collecting them a lot of fun. I don't buy the proof sets from the mint, I just wait until one of the quarters reaches me (or one of my friends and family) in regular circulation.

I've gotten sort of protective of these quarters. I was once waiting for the bus with a friend of mine, who realized that he had forgotten his bus pass. He came up with almost enough change for bus fare, but was 50 cents short. I had 2 quarters for my collection in my bag, but that was it. It was a tough call whether to keep them or give them to my friend. (Don't worry...I gave them to him. I'm not that heartless :) )

Last week was an exciting one for me, since I finally have collected all the quarters that have been minted. So far, 42 out of 50 states have quarters; Washington was the most recent state to have its quarter minted, and my wonderful husband found that one for me on Monday. It's a pretty cool-looking quarter, in my opinion.

All in all, most states have done a good job with creating a distinct design that represents their state. States quarters that include recognizable locations or natural formations, such as the Old Man of the Mountain on New Hampshire's quarter or Crater Lake on Oregon's quarter, are good design choices, as are products, animals, or events for which a state is well known. Florida's space shuttle, Louisiana's jazz, and Wisconsin's cheese have all developed this last idea well.

The quarters that frustrate me are the ones where the picture has no strong connection to the state. For example, Delaware. Delaware's quarter shows a colonial guy on horseback, with the words "The First State" and then "Caesar Rodney" below the horse. Apparently Rodney was the man who rode 80 miles in terrible conditions to submit the deciding vote for American independence. It's a great story, but not one that I immediately connect with Delaware. And it's also not a story that can be powerfully conveyed on the back of a quarter. Some states, such as Kansas and North Dakota, have even gone so far as to have essentially the same design, with both of them showing a buffalo. Now, I realize that these states might not have a lot to work with, but c'mon, you can do better than that!

Other quarters that frustrate me are the ones that just have some vague symbol and then the outline of the state. Texas, which has a star, and Pennsylvania, which has a keystone (not even a good symbol) and a statue honoring liberty, both fall into this category. New York's quarter has a similar design, but since their symbol is the Statue of Liberty, that's ok.

Some states' designs aren't obviously connected to the state, but they have done such a great job with the artistry of the quarter that it's ok. The designs of both the Mississippi and the Nevada quarter fall into this category--both quarters have very elegant lines that are quite beautiful.

So all this talk leads up to the following question: which state quarter is my favorite?

At this point, I have two: Vermont and Nebraska.

The designs on both quarters are artistically interesting, particularly the way the tree branches reach to the edges of the coin on the Vermont quarter and the way the sun's rays in the Nebraska quarter suggest an enormous expanse of sky. I also like how both quarters incorporate something that I associate with their state: in the case of Vermont, maple syrup, and in the case of Nebraska, the pioneers. The Chimney Rock addition on the Nebraska quarter is an added bonus--I'm not familiar with the landmark, but this quarter has taught me something about Nebraska by catching my attention with things that I already knew first. The motto "freedom and unity" on the Vermont quarter has a similar effect, although it has less of an impact because it's smaller.

So, if you're interested, visit the homepage of the 50 State Quarters Program, take a look at these coins for yourself, and see if you have a favorite of your own. And if you do, let me know!

Things you probably didn't know about the UK

As some of you probably know, I'm heading to Germany and England for two weeks in August. I've been doing a lot of planning for the trip, and it's gotten me really excited to go. So, because I can't wait to go to Europe, I've been doing the next best thing--reading everything I can find online about the places we're going. Yes, I know I have issues.

In the course of my reading, I've found out some very strange things about the UK:

• They call curling irons "hair tongs." And what's more, it appears that some hair tongs are powered by gas cartridges, rather than electricity. A cordless curling iron would be nice, I suppose...
• Shepherds in northern England, Wales, and southern Scotland used to have their own specialized number systems for counting sheep. Some speculate that these counting systems led to the idea of counting sheep to lull yourself to sleep. According to Wikipedia, here's how you count to twenty sheep in the Borrowdale region of the Lake District: Yan, Tyan, Tethera, Methera, Pimp (5), Sethera, Lethera, Hovera, Dovera, Dick (10), Yan-a-dick, Tyan-a-dick, Tethera-dick, Methera-dick, Bumfit (15), Yan-a-bumfit, Tyan-a-bumfit, Tethera-bumfit, Methera-bumfit, Giggot (20). I know I shouldn't laugh at other people's languages and cultures, but I can't helping giggling a little, especially at "bumfit."
• You know how everyone says that carrots are really good for your eyes? Well, apparently, they're not quite as good as we all think. Carrots do contain vitamin A, which is necessary for healthy eyes, but eating lots of carrots won't help to improve your eyesight. The connection between carrots and super eyesight was solidified during WWII. Carrots played a big role in both the US and the UK, with citizens being encouraged to grow their own produce to make these nations more self-reliant. The "Dig for Victory" campaign in the UK and the "Victory Gardens" in the US promoted the carrot as a great way for children in particular to get nutrients that they normally got from fruit, which was no longer available. Well, according to the Carrot Museum, the powers of the carrot were exaggerated to hide the new radar system that the UK had developed. In 1940, Flight Lieutenant John Cunningham shot down the first German pilot using this radar system. The Royal Air Force wanted to keep the new system quiet, so instead, they spread the rumor that John "Cat Eyes" Cunningham had exceptional vision that let him see in the dark because of his love of snacking on carrots. The Germans bought the myth--as did the British people, who started growing and eating more carrots so that they could see better during mandatory blackouts.

That's all the crazy facts for today. I'll post more if I find them :)

Singing hallelujah with the fear in your heart

I'm a sucker for 80's rock ballads. I didn't listen to them growing up, but my freshman year in college--back when Napster was still...ummm...not legal, but it wouldn't get you arrested--a bunch of us in my dorm downloaded a lot of 80's hits and grew to love them. Among our favorites was Meatloaf; songs like "Hot Summer Night", "Heaven Can Wait", and "Life is a Lemon" appealed to our various moods--hopefulness, joy, romance, angst, and despair. But even more, we loved the music itself, these powerful, soaring melodies that captured the mood of the song and made it almost tangible.

The song "Intervention" from Arcade Fire's latest album Neon Bible has the same effect on me. I love the whole album, but this one song has really grabbed onto me in a way the others haven't. I think a lot has to do with the melody and instrumentation; it works in the same way that Meatloaf does. The song opens with massive organ chords, evocative of the opening of Meatloaf's "Home by Now." There's something about using a pipe organ that conveys a feeling of sacredness and awe to the listener. It's pretty cool.

The brilliance of the song comes when you think about this sacred music in connection to the lyrics. The song tells of people who are trying to work within the established system, desperately trying not to lose hope when their family is faced with hardship and tragedy. Here are some sample lyrics:

You say it's money that we need /As if we're only mouths to feed
Working for the church /While your family dies /You take what they give you /And you keep it inside /Every spark of friendship and love /Will die without a home
Working for the church /While your life falls apart /Singing hallelujah with the fear in your heart
This is what I think makes the song so incredible. While Meatloaf sings about love in its many forms, Arcade Fire sings about those who are struggling to live and celebrates them and what they have to go through. It's not a religious experience exactly, but it's close. Jody Rosen, writing for Slate Magazine, describes Arcade Fire as a combination of U2 and Bruce Springsteen; I think the Springsteen comparison is particularly applicable here. Just like Springsteen was seen as the rock star for blue-collar workers, Arcade Fire sings about those who struggle to get by in a way that doesn't make them victims and doesn't patronize them, but instead, sings in way that shows how their lives are sacred and worth celebrating as individuals.

Now that's a song worth singing.

Weird things I find interesting...

So, as my earlier M*A*S*H post suggests, I have this weird fascination with recognizing actors in places I didn't expect to see them. I mean, I know that Tom Hanks starred in Big, so seeing him there isn't really that interesting. And even if I hadn't known that going in, he's such a big star now, and he's the star of the movie, so it's not that interesting.

But, if he had a bit part as a bartender in some crap movie, where he doesn't even really look like Tom Hanks and you look at him and think, "Hey! Is that Tom Hanks?", now that's what I think is interesting.

I know. I'm weird.

I've been watching the Firefly series recently (I want to watch the whole series before I blog about the content, so you'll hear about that later), and this situation presented itself with 4 of the show's main characters. I was sitting there, watching the pilot episode, thinking, "I know I've seen these actors in other stuff. But where?"

The easiest to figure out was Alan Tudyk, who plays Wash, the pilot of the ship Serenity. His character is kind of happy-go-lucky, always cracking jokes and relieving tense moments. That and his red hair made it easy to place him as Steve the Pirate from the movie Dodgeball. The characters are similar enough that I didn't have a completely different idea of that actor in my head.

The other easy one was Adam Baldwin, who plays Jayne Cobb, the mercenary muscle whose allegiance to the captain and Serenity are always sort of in question. He's a tough guy, very much into physical force, so it wasn't that hard to remember him as Major Mitchell in the movie Independence Day. When I double-checked this on IMDB, I realized I'd seen him in a bunch of other stuff as well, including ads for Daybreak (although I've never seen the show).

The other two were a bit tougher, and I think these really show why I'm fascinated by trying to place actors. Sometimes it's really hard. And when it's that hard, you know they're really doing a great job, because they have created such a believable character that you can't think of them as anyone else, not even the real person behind the character. For me, this happens most often when actors play roles that are very different from each other.

A great example of this is Nathan Fillion, who plays Captain Mal Reynolds on the show. He holds his cards very close to his chest and tries not to get emotionally involved with his crew and passengers, and because of this, I had a hard time placing him as Johnny Donnelly from the stupid sitcom Two Guys, A Girl, and a Pizza Place, even though his haircut is almost identical in both shows. I think it's a real tribute to his acting that even when I thought I recognized him, I had to double-check online because he seemed so different.

But the one that really blew my mind was Gina Torres, who plays Zoe Washburne, Mal's #2 and wife of Wash, the pilot. It honestly took me until I saw the credits to realize who she had played--Anna Espinosa from Alias. Those of you who know me know that I'm a bit of an Alias nut; I've seen most episodes at least twice, often more. So it's not that I haven't seen Alias very much. It's just that Torres' character is so different in Firefly. While both Anna and Zoe are incredibly strong female characters, Zoe is, well, gentler. Her hair is curly and pulled back, while Anna's was usually straight down her back. And I think the biggest difference is that Zoe smiles, and the only time we saw Anna smile was when she was mocking Sydney Bristow.

Notes on Hillary's campaign

I'm a Hillary fan. I think she has shown concrete policy plans that Obama has not, I appreciate her desire to reform health care, and I respect her experience in the White House during Bill's presidency, as well as on her own in the US Senate. I don't think her initial vote for the war in Iraq is a deal-breaker, since many people on both sides of the aisle thought the war was a good idea at the beginning. I also really enjoyed reading her autobiography, Living History.

But, perhaps the real reason that I want her to win the presidency is because I think it's time that this country recognized that a woman can be president, too. I wouldn't vote for just any woman, but since I agree with Clinton's politics, she has my support.

This past semester, I helped grade for a cultural studies class about the body and issues of representation. One of the issues that we discussed was the complicated ways in which women in power need to be both feminine and masculine--if they're too feminine, they're accused of being weak, ineffective leaders, but if they're too masculine, they're called power-hungry and controlling. Hillary Clinton was one of the women that we looked at more in-depth, and since then, I've been paying a little closer attention to the attention that has been shown her by the media, as well as the way she's presenting herself through her own campaign.

Here are some things that I've found particularly interesting:

The picture of Hillary on the left is a picture of her greeting an old friend. Apparently, the friend surprised Hillary, catching her off guard, and some photographer managed to catch her at just the wrong moment. This picture was on the "most-emailed" list at YahooNews for several weeks. I find it interesting that her looking, well, slightly evil, is considered newsworthy, not only by the media, but by those who email it to their friends.

Also, as I've been looking for a "Clinton for President 2008" bumper sticker, I've come across some interesting t-shirts and stickers. There are quite a large number of shirts that call Hillary a bitch, or even more than that, suggest that her wanting power is a negative character trait. The shirt on the right is one that encapsulates these ideas--the crown on Hillary's head, in particular, is something that I find interesting. Doesn't everyone who run for president want power? I seriously doubt that anyone who runs for president does so merely out of the goodness of his heart. I would imagine that everyone who runs for office does so to some degree because they want power. Yet when Hillary runs for president, suddenly she's "Queen Bitch" and her desire for power is inappropriate.

I'm also interested by the ways that both the media and Hillary's own campaign tries to counteract these negative images of power by embracing her more feminine side. Her video that announced her candidacy, found here, was set in a living room, rather than an office, with soft cushions, curtains, and even flowers in the background. Her continued emphasis on the idea of conversation, by working to talk to people in their living rooms and by even using the phrase "let's chat," brings to mind stereotypical women's spaces and activities. The bumper sticker on the left is another example of this--the soft pink color and the gentle cursive lettering is something you certainly wouldn't find on any of the male candidates' promotional material.

Perhaps the most obvious difference of all is the way she's named herself as a candidate. While we've known all past presidents by their last names--Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan--she has branded herself as a first name. Take a look in the official Hillary Store. Everything says "Hillary for president" rather than "Clinton for president." My initial thought was that perhaps it was a desire to separate her campaign from her husband's, or at least to differentiate between the two. But her campaign has embraced Bill's help, drawing on his expertise and his connections to raise funds and even make ads. When George W. Bush ran for President, he was known officially as Bush, so it seems that the issue at hand is less the issue of the same name and more to do with Clinton's gender. Even in the most basic aspects of her campaign--what she's known as--Hillary Clinton is forced to walk the thin line between being a weak, feminine candidate, and being a power-hungry man-eater.

Other examples you can think of?

Chris Bliss, juggler supreme

My husband can juggle, which is just one of the many reasons I married him. Every once in a while, when he's bored, he'll look for juggling videos on YouTube. A while back, he found this video of juggler Chris Bliss, doing a choreographed juggling routine:



Every time we watch the routine, we're impressed by the way the juggling fits to the music, and even more importantly, how Bliss draws in the audience to make a simple 3-ball juggling act extremely engaging. Bliss used the 3-ball juggling routine when he opened for Michael Jackson's 1984 Victory tour, and more recently in 2006, the above video became an Internet sensation with 20 million viewings in 40 days.

Now, some jugglers were astonished that Bliss got so much publicity, since his routine was so simple.

One of these jugglers is Jason Garfield, who uses the same music as Bliss in the video below, but while juggling five balls, to show that what Bliss is doing is no big deal:



The thing is, I've never watched this video all the way through. I get bored halfway through it and shut it off. Sure, Garfield can juggle 5 balls--good for him. But he doesn't do it musically. The interesting thing in Bliss's routine is the way that his whole body actively engages the music. Garfield looks like he's concentrating too hard on not dropping a ball to even pay attention to the music.

Chris Bliss is an entertainer, while Garfield is just a juggler.

Why I Quit World of Warcraft

I've been meaning to write this post for a while now, but kept putting it off to write about other things. World of Warcraft was such a big part of my life for a long time--I saw this loading screen almost every night for more than 2 years--and I needed some time to figure out why I quit. History grants perspective, I guess.

One of the reasons I'm writing it now is that it's been about a year since the guild I co-led fell apart. For some people, World of Warcraft is purely social; for others, it's extremely competitive and about improving your own character as much as possible. Neither is right nor wrong, but they definitely describe two very different approaches to the game. Many people think it can't be both. But my co-guild leader (Plugdo, a night elf priest) and I thought it could be. We wanted to make a guild that could do the high-end content, but never put success or the rewards from raiding above the people in the guild. We wanted guild members to be friends first, and hoped that would give the guild the solid foundation it needed for success.

And it worked great, for a while. The best times I had playing World of Warcraft were with that guild. I remember the first time that we took down a major boss (the ugly guy pictured to the right)--I had to call my little brother to tell him, I was so excited. But, like any relationship, there were bad moments along with the good. Members would quit that I thought were in it for the long haul, people would get greedy or act petty, and stuff like that would really hurt. My guild gave me the best times I had while playing World of Warcraft, but also the most stressful and most emotional.

In the end, the guild lasted about 6 months; in June of 2006 we called it quits because guild members (and leaders, to be honest) just weren't able or willing to put in the time and effort necessary to progress to the next level of the game. I think our idea behind the guild is still a possibility (I've seen other guilds that are very close to what we envisioned), but that the timing just wasn't quite right for us. At any rate, guild members scattered in many directions--some switched servers, some quit, some joined other guilds. And after that, World of Warcraft wasn't really the same for me.

I joined another guild that was more explicitly dedicated to being a serious guild, and while I liked the people a lot and enjoyed playing with them, it wasn't the same as me being in charge of a guild that I had a hand in building. I tried playing casually for a while, not doing much raiding but playing a lot in 5-person groups with family and friends, and while I enjoyed the people, I got bored with the content and wanted to be able to experience the more challenging content that I knew I was good enough to do.

Then the Burning Crusade expansion came out, and it was amazing. The zones were well-done, there were exciting quests and new instances to fight in. I thought it would help me get excited about the game again. But at some point, I just got overwhelmed. There was so much to do, all at once. There were quest chains to finish, reputation to earn, tradeskills to level, and money to acquire--all of which took a lot of time. Yes, I could have gone at a slower pace, completing things when I had time, but I'm the kind of player who thinks that if I'm going to play a game, I want to be competitive. And so, since the game was feeling too much like work, I decided to quit and give real life a chance again.

Am I sorry that I spent 2 years of my life playing World of Warcraft? Not at all. I learned a lot about myself, including aspects of my leadership style that are applicable in my real-life job. I met a lot of great people and had a lot of fun (like the time that I blinked into Mar'li the Spider boss in Zul'Gurub and ended the raid...I think you had to be there). And on top of that, I got to see firsthand the amazing creativity behind one of the most popular video games in the world.

But when you ask if I'm sorry that I quit, you'll get the same answer. I'm not at all sorry that I quit playing. I miss the people that I met while playing, and I miss feeling like I'm part of a larger community that's all working together to achieve a common goal. But at the end of the day, there's no getting around the fact that so much of what you're working for doesn't actually exist.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking World of Warcraft, those who love playing, or even MMOs in general. I think it's a terrific game and a great video game genre. It's just that I needed to switch my own focus from things I enjoyed in a virtual world to the things that inspired them in real life. And so now, I'm enjoying this "real" part of real life: I'm having fun making real music in the church choir, instead of just playing the stupid flute trinket from Stratholme; I'm enjoying cooking real meals, instead of leveling up my cooking skill another 3 levels in the game; I think it's great to go swimming in our pool instead of watching my character go swimming in a virtual lake; and I'm working to develop friendships based on mutual interests other than simply killing the next big dragon. It's not quite as exciting as living in a world filled with netherdragons, murlocs, and a complete set of Tirisfal Regalia (I still can't get over how sweet that set looks!...must...look...away..), but it's more satisfying and the rewards are longer-lasting.

I doubt that I'll ever start playing World of Warcraft again--it would be too easy to get sucked back into it (see above comment on Tirisfal Regalia). But I had a great time playing it, and to all those who helped make the game so much fun for me, thank you. May your journeys in Azeroth--or if you've moved on, Middle-Earth, a galaxy far, far away, or real life--be safe, fun, and filled with epixx! :)

This week's movies

Here are my thoughts on the latest batch of Netflix rentals...

The Queen is a fantastic movie, I thought. Initially, I found it interesting seeing how they got actors who looked like the royals in real life, but as the movie progressed, the actors were so convincing in their roles that I forgot that they weren't actually the real people involved. I honestly think that this film should have gotten an Oscar for costume design, because everything was spot on. The film tells the story of the week between Diana's death and her funeral, and how Queen Elizabeth II and Tony Blair reacted to it and interacted with each other. The film is strongest in its portrayal of the private moments of the royals. The most private of these moments are led up to, with the actual moment itself being left offscreen. This scene set-up is a brilliant way to capture the struggle this family has at being private while living in the public eye. Helen Mirren's performance is reason in itself to watch the movie. From the beginning of the film, where she turns to look at the camera straight-on, she is the Queen. And the scene with the stag near the river is one of the most powerful in the movie.

Rating: 4.5 stars out of 5

The Pursuit of Happyness is another very good movie, but it leaves you feeling very, very tired. The key word in the title is not "Happyness" but rather "Pursuit." If you're looking for a movie that will make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, this is not it. Instead, it's about the grueling struggle that Will Smith's character goes through to provide for himself and his son. They live on such an edge--often surviving day to day--that I found myself feeling tense throughout the entire movie, just waiting for something bad to happen to them that would finish them off. I do think this movie, along with Barbara Ehrenreich's book Nickel and Dimed, should be required viewing/reading for every middle-class and above resident of the US, because both offer an incredibly insightful perspective on why it's so difficult, if not impossible, for those who make minimum wage to get things that we take for granted, such as a place to live, transportation, and an education.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5

The 40-Year-Old Virgin wasn't very good. I think it would have been much better if it were a lot shorter. I saw the unrated version, which is 133 minutes, and even the theatrical release was 116 minutes. For a gimmick-comedy like this one, you can only drag it out so long before it gets boring. The first half of the movie shows Andy (Steve Carell) trying out various ways of dealing with being a virgin; the second half shows his developing relationship with Trish, who doesn't know he's a virgin. The second half was a lot better than the first, because it showed character development on Andy's part, rather than just his friends trying to help him/making fun of him. But I still think they must have forgotten to hire film editors for this one--it would be decent at 90 minutes, but definitely boring at 2 hours.

Rating: 1.5 stars out of 5

Catch and Release looks like a chick flick, and it pretty much is one, but without the feel-good moments of romance. It tells the story of Gray Wheeler (Jennifer Garner) who finds out secrets about her fiancé Grady after he dies and ends up falling for his friend Fritz. Instead of feeling mushy and happy, I just felt slightly concerned for Fritz and Gray's budding relationship, since she seemed to be hardcore on the rebound and they never did anything but have sex. Not that there's anything wrong with sex, but to believe the relationship, there should be a bit more, you know? Also, there were too many subplots squeezed into the movie, some only developed by monosyllables between two of Grady's male friends. I love Jennifer Garner and all (and Kevin Smith is occasionally funny in a supporting role), but her dimples and charm can only carry a poorly written movie so far.

Rating: 2.5 stars out of 5

Yo ho, haul together, hoist the colors high!

Normally, I'm too cheap to go to the movies in theaters, unless it's something both my husband and I are really dying to see and that we think would be better in the theater. Lord of the Rings, for example, made the cut. I can think of 3 or 4 movies since then that have.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End was not a movie I was planning to go see in the theater. I thought the first one was ok, and sort of muddled my way through 2/3 of the 2nd one. I remember something about a swordfight on a giant wooden wheel, but other than that, I was pretty confused. I was also made wary by many reviewers who dismissed the movie as more summer blockbuster fare: Rotten Tomatoes gives it 47% on the tomatometer, making it a rotten tomato.

But my friend K. asked me to go, and so I thought, "What the heck? I do like movie popcorn." And, even though the movie was quite long (168 minutes), I was pleasantly surprised to find that I enjoyed it.

That's not to say that the movie didn't have its problems. It reminded me quite a bit of the third Matrix movie in terms of plot--you really had to have taken notes during the first two movies for the third to make any sense. People coming back from the dead, special pirate laws, complicated relationships whose explanation was in a previous movie, multiple switching of allegiances--it was all there. The first big fight scene in Singapore really summed up the movie quite nicely: three groups of people are all fighting, and you have no idea why they're fighting or who's on what side. I asked a few clarifying questions, but after a while, gave up to enjoy what the movie does well.

We'll get to that in a minute, but for now, my only other big issue with the movie is the way the Elizabeth/Will relationship is handled. Yes, I know it's supposed to be an action movie and the focus isn't on romance, but if the movie is going to pretend that their relationship is complex and deep, then it needs to follow through on that. Throughout the movie, they talk about how they have issues with trust, but none of those issues are resolved before the relationship is solidified (in a completely ridiculous scene, by the way...undermined a lot of the nice things I was thinking about the movie at the time). And quite frankly, the ending made me mad and seemed like a lousy, unfair-to-the-viewer way to get Will out of the decision-making jam that he's stuck in.

These plot/relationship points aside, the movie does a lot of things very, very well, the biggest being the special effects and cinematography. Even though the movie presents a lot of ridiculous things--ships coming out of the ocean, guys with fish heads, monstrous maelstroms in the middle of the ocean--it's all completely believable within the realm of the movie because these special effects are woven seamlessly into the film. The cinematography is also really amazing. There are a lot of shots of wide expanses of ocean that are, well, inspiring. The swordfight scenes are spectacular, particularly the one between Davy Jones and Captain Sparrow. And near the end of the movie, there is a scene involving Lord Cutler Beckett that's artistic and moving and almost makes you feel sorry for him.

The soundtrack does a lot to heighten the effects of the cinematography. In one scene where Elizabeth, Barbarossa, and Jack Sparrow are all walking across a sandbar to meet with the "enemy" leaders, the camera pans out and the music crescendos, making an overlong, boring walk into an extremely dramatic buildup.

But perhaps the best reason to watch Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is Johnny Depp's portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow. I know a lot has been written about what a great job he does, and how no one else could really pull off the role convincingly, but it bears repeating here, particularly because in this third installment, we see Sparrow interacting with his hallucinations of himself. Depp interacting with Depp is very well done, and quite hilarious. Keith Richards is also great in a small cameo as Sparrow's dad, and especially funny because Depp has cited him as inspiration for his performance as Sparrow.

So yes, the critics are right--Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is traditional summer blockbuster fare, light on the plot and character development and heavy on the action sequences and special effects. But it does those things very well, and that makes it worth watching, especially in the theater, where you will get the full effect.

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5

America's Got What Now?

It just seemed like a giant colon gone berserk.--David Hasselhoff

I'm not really sure why I watch America's Got Talent. It's a pretty brutal show, to be honest. I think part of why I enjoy it is seeing all the things that people consider talents. Take last night's season premiere, for example. You had people dancing, singing, swinging on sheets hung from the ceiling, playing musical instruments, doing ventriloquy, making pets do crazy tricks, cheerleading, and impersonating Elvis. Oh yeah, and you can't forget the brothers who made their pecs move in time to music. And then there was the guy inside the neon-colored Slinky-like tube, that sort of undulated all over the stage, prompting the above quote. It was quite a collection of, well, freaks.

The two groups that made it to the next stage that I really liked were both musical groups. One was a group of three young women called "Southern Girls" and the other was a group of three young men called "Rascals." Both showed an ability to harmonize that actually smacked of talent. The women had good voices, and while the men's voices weren't as strong, I thought their idea of young people singing old hits was a cool one. Although their rhinestone-studded jackets have to go.

The one act that got through that I really, really, really hated was the last one--a saxophone player who calls himself Mr. Big. He's awful. His sax playing isn't anything great, the song he chose is cliché, and the stuff that he does that he calls "dancing" or perhaps "performing" is just terrible, but somehow, all three of the judges mistook it for "taking control of the stage." Ugh. My only thought is that they have to let a few freaks through to later stages, to keep that crazy factor in there. But boy, do I hope this guy gets kicked out early.

Two more general thoughts about the show. I found myself agreeing almost consistently with Piers Morgan, the judge who's supposed to be the Simon Cowell-type character on the show. Both Sharon Osbourne (whom I like way more than Brandy last season, by the way) and David Hasselhoff berate Morgan for not being nicer, but in my opinion, he's the voice of reason in a contest dumbed down by mediocre act after mediocre act. Stick to your guns, Piers.

The other thing is about the child contestants, and connects back to something I said the other day, about how you can't have it both ways. A lot of these kids get up on stage, perform pretty well for someone who is 10, and then expect to be praised for being precocious . Then, when Piers tells them that they're terrible and treats them as he would an adult, he gets yelled at for not being nicer to a kid. Hey Kids--either you're a legitimate contestant, and should expect to be treated as such, or you should get your "good-for-a-10-year-old" act back to the county fair where it belongs. I think it's for this reason that I would really like to see an age limit in the contest. I'm extremely tired of seeing kids marching up on stage who think they're the next great thing, but whose singing/dancing/musicianship/etc. wouldn't hold a candle to any mildly talented adult. You don't award someone $1 million for being good for a kid; you award them $1 million for being great. Period.

Sorry, rant off. Anyways, the tryouts move to LA next week. I'll keep you posted about what wackos and/or talented people they manage to dig up. Stay tuned.

Nice work Bryce and Milam!!

Well, it's the time of year when high school seniors' thoughts turn to graduation--mortarboards, tassels, endless speeches, the cool gifts that they'll get from family and friends, and diplomas. And in my hometown of Stevens Point, Wisconsin, they also think about the senior class prank.

In past years, the prank has ranged from really lame (my year) to pretty cool (3 years before me) to extremely awesome (rumors). My year, the seniors at SPASH (Stevens Point Area Senior High) apparently released birds into the fieldhouse. But I never saw them, and they were cleared out before the graduation ceremony. Lame.

A few years before I graduated, the seniors released all the mice and rats from the biology classrooms into the school. In my opinion, this was a pretty good prank in terms of disruptiveness and future potential for grossness. Not bad.

The best prank I'd heard of, until this year, was just a rumor of one class, years ago, that had brought a cow into the school and led it upstairs into the library. The best part of the prank? Cows go up stairs, but not down. No word on how the cow was gotten out of the library, but if it were true, this would have been a kick-ass prank.

Enter this year, the class of 2007. Some unidentified seniors rearranged the letters on the fieldhouse that originally said "SPASH Panthers" to say "ASS Panthers." Pretty good, in and of itself, although I think they're ripping off a similar prank my brother pulled years ago.

But the best part of it is that two guys, unrelated to the original prank, capitalized on this and made shirts that said "Ass Panther Pride" that had a picture of a panther jumping out of a butt. Bryce Patton and Milam Smith managed to sell 80 copies of the shirt before they were caught. High school administrators made them collect the shirts until after graduation, so they wouldn't appear during the ceremony.

I gotta say--this is awesome. I would really love one of these shirts, and if anyone can get one for me, I'd really appreciate it. But the best part is that this is finally a SPASH senior prank that shows creativity and will leave a lasting mark, without defacing school property (at least the t-shirt part of it).

My hat is off to you, Bryce and Milam! And congratulations on your graduation!

You can't have it both ways

Every once in a while, you come across something--a book, a movie, a politician--that is both praised and excused for the very same quality. Perhaps my favorite example of this is something fantasy author Pat Rothfuss said to me about the book Eragon, which was written by Christopher Paolini when he was 15. Many people praise the book: "It's such a great book, especially for someone who is only 15." But then, when the book is criticized by the many people who think the book is a poorly written knock-off of Lucas and Tolkien (myself included), those who love the book say, "Give the guy a break, he was only 15."

As Pat aptly pointed out, "You can't have it both ways."

You can either praise someone for being a brilliant author at 15, or you can excuse someone for writing tripe because he's 15. But you can't praise and excuse him. It just doesn't work that way.

I think the same thing can be said about Andrew Speaker, the attorney from Atlanta who recently defied doctor's orders in order to fly home from Italy, even though he is infected with extremely drug-resistant TB, XD-TB for short. This strain of tuberculosis is resistant to all conventional TB treatments, making it quite scary. And airline flights, because of their closed-air systems, are a particularly bad place for someone with this disease to be.

Speaker flew from the US to Greece for his wedding, even though his doctor recommended that he not go. Then, when the CDC wanted to detain him in Rome because they had found out that Speaker had XD-TB, Speaker decided to fly home anyways. But he had to fly through Canada, because he had been put on US "no-fly" lists. Huh.

Speaker recently had an interview with Diane Sawyer on Good Morning, America, where he "apologized" for what he had done. The best part of the apology was when he said to one of the passengers who was seated next to him, "I'm sorry for your fear." Looks like he's taken a lesson from celebrity apologies...

Anyways, if you watch the interview, Speaker says two things over and over:

1. In the first part of the interview, he says that he didn't think the disease was a big deal, he didn't think it was contagious, he didn't think it was a problem if he traveled or was out of the country.

2. In the second part of the interview, he talks about how scared he was that he would never get back to the United States, and how he thought he was going to die if he didn't get back to the special clinic in Denver for treatment. At first he just said that he thought he was going to die in Rome, but as the interview progressed, he just kept saying that he thought he was going to die.

And this is where I see the problem with what he's saying. Either he knew before he flew that his disease was really awful and needed special treatment--in which case he shouldn't have flown in the first place--OR he didn't know before he flew how bad the disease was, and his knowledge that he needed to immediately return to Denver, whatever the cost, is inexplicable and unjustifiable.

It's not quite the same as those who both praise and excuse Eragon, but it's similar. Speaker is trying both to negate the problem and make us feel sorry for him having this awful disease, but the way I see it, they cancel each other out.

You can't have it both ways.

Don't get me wrong. I think this disease sounds terrible, and it's awful that anyone should have it. I don't want Speaker to die from it (as apparently other bloggers have said)--I hope that doctors find a treatment and are able to cure him. I hope that he and his wife have a wonderful marriage and they have many great years together.

But I do think that he should step up and take responsibility for what he's done. I think that he should realize that right now, this is not about him and how scared he is or how bad he looks in the media. It's about all of the rest of the world, and how scared we are that some stupid action on his part may have put us or our loved ones in danger. I have sympathy for Andrew Speaker because he has this disease, but in no way does that give him an excuse to act without thinking and endanger others.