Quite a few movies on this one.

Beowulf
- I knew this had CGI or whatever but I was really shocked by how much
it felt like a cartoon, a brutally violent cartoon at that.  I never
read Beowulf or really had any idea what it was about but the movie was
entertaining…and I guess that's the extent of my critique – It was
entertaining.  I can't really comment on any actor performances or
cinematography, because there was none.  But if you're just looking for
a good action flick in a cartoonish medium, then go for it.  My rating
is a 2.

Indiana Jones and the
Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Watching this again after many years and I believe it stands up well
through the test of time.  Probably my favourite Indiana Jones movie. 
In fact watching it now as an adult I think I caught on to more of the
archaelogical shit, which made it more interesting.  Whereas when I was
a kid I liked the action and the shitty humour.  My rating is a 3.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop
- The kids love this shit.  I hate this shit.  Seriously one of the
worst movies and humour I've seen in a long fucking time.  I'm not a
Kevin James fan but I at least thought the guy had some sense if so
many people liked him.  Not funny at all even if I delved deeply to try
and find my 8 year old self, I think he would agree.  My rating is a 1.

Friday the 13th (New 2008 or 2009 version)
- Again another horrible movie that I could barely finish because
somehow I got distracted.  If you can get distracted for even a moment
in a horror or suspense movie, then that is a problem.  Never a huge
fan of Friday the 13th in the first place, but I do like the occasional
schmaltzy horror movie, if for at least reminiscing when this stuff did
scare me.  The only reason to like this movie is for Tits from hot ass
girl campers, who's fate is destined at the hands of Jason.  My ratins
is once again a 1.

Willow
- Got this for the kids, and again a movie I am watching as an adult. 
I liked it better as a kid.  It's not that it's bad, it's pretty
decent.  I can see where it gets the comparison as a fantasy Star
Wars.  I think I would compare it more though to the new Star Wars,
especially with the Brownies characters (think Jar-Jar Binks).  Val
Kilmer probably should have passed and left this for Rutger Hauer or
something…would've probably been better for his career resume.  My
rating a 2.

Pineapple Express
- Chalky humour.  Lots of pot jokes and so on.  Is funny only if you're
a bottle of wine deep while watching (which I was).  I gotta admit, I
really like watching comedies a LOT more now than ever in my life.  I
like laughing at dumb shit, so this my taint my review.  But still I
think Pineapple Express, while it does have some moments, as a whole is
very mediocre.  Especially since I have higher expectations from that
team of writers and actors.  My rating a 2.

Overall a pretty
blase movie viewing experience this last week or two.  Hopefully I will
have something better to write about next time. 
Upcoming:

The Hunting Party – Joe recommendation
Speed Racer
Irreversible – Supposedly "SHOCKING" French
Film.

Have any of you seen "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"?

Well,
I have.  In fact I saw it last night, and it lasted ALL night, 2hr
49min to be exact.  I gotta say it gets a 2 on my scale (1-Disliked,
2-Liked, but wouldn't recommend, 3-Liked and recommend, 4- Really
Liked, Highly Recommend).

First, nothing was as good as it was
ramped up to be.  The cinemotography was good, everybody acclaims the
train robbery scene, but not all that.  In fact I'm more moved by the
"western scenes" that turn out to be filmed in Italy in old spaghetti
westerns than I am by these.  The plot is very slow moving, some will
say intentionally but I nodded off at one point, NOT GOOD.  This is one
of those movies that is OK but is latched onto by the critic zeitgeist
(aka Joe) and loved.  I didn't hate it but I've seen better.  To call
it the best Western since "Unforgiven" is unforgivable.

I saw Slumdog Millionaire and I give it a 2.  There was a lot hype
about this movie but I did enjoy it.  It reminded me a lot of "City of
God" which is a really good movie about the slums in Brazil and the
violence.  It's not knock you out of your seat good, but solid.

"The
Devils Rejects" gets a 4.  I really liked this movie, not sure what it
says about me because it's pretty fuckin twisted.  I loved the '70's
cinematography and soundtrack.  The soundtrack kicks ass in this
movie.  The character of Captain Spaulding is probably one of the
interesting characters in a movie I've seen in a while.  It also has
some funny moments, in a sick way though.  Mike, I definitely think you
would enjoy this movie, move it to the top of your queue.

Ok, I watched Joe's recommendation Idiocracy and Mike's recommendation Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story.

Dewey
Cox had some really funny parts and wasn't as dumb as I though it would
be.  I don't think it's as funny as Mike made it out to be but overall
it was better than I thought.  Rating is a 2.

Idiocracy
was pretty funny.  Actually Mike, I think you would love this movie it
has  a lot of ass and whore jokes.  It was made by the Beavis and
Butthead guy so it has that type stupid but really funny humor.  Grades is a 3.

Within the last 8 or so years, with the advent of the book Moneyball, the area of baseball statistics called Sabermetrics has really grown in popularity and legitimacy.  Sabermetrics aren't new, in fact the Godfather of them, Bill James, has been publishing for 20+ years.  With the rise in legitimacy, they are now being used by many as the foundation for determining awards, salary, playing time, promotions/demotions, signings, etc.  It's hard not to read a baseball article without some mention of OBP or VORP.  The Sabermetrics proponents will claim that these statistics that are surpassing the older statistics, such as RBI's, Wins and Batting Average, are in fact much more accurate and more of a reflection of a player's true value.  The use of the older statistics has fooled us, and moreso that decisions not based on the results of sabermetrics (ie intuition) are not optimal.  For example, a manager's decision to pinch hit or not and with whom is almost always second guessed using a metric claimed by Sabermetricians to be rational measurement.  I have two main points:

1)  First, when comparing Sabermetric stats vs. traditional stats the sabermetric stats do bring a great insights that traditional statistics failed to do.  In general, however the proponents of the Sabermetric stats fail to admit that stats, in general, have to based on a certain premise that can't be statistically proven, so it's a reduction to eventually making an intuitive claim.  See this post for more info.

2)  When making a decision in baseball there are a multitude of factors and variables that statistics can only measure in the broadest sense.  For example, it's the 8th inning the Yankees are down by 1 with 2 outs, runner on 2nd.  They have A-Rod on the bench and Melky Cabrera to pinch hit.  It's sprinkling slightly, the pitcher is lefty, A-Rod is slightly hung over, Cabrera is 2-20 in his last 20 AB's, but 12-30 in his last 30 AB's, and I could go on and and on adding variable after variable.  The statistics can tell you which batter hits better average, obp, slugging, and it can probably even reduce it to vs. lefty/righty, home/away etc.  However, at a certain point there is not a stat that can take in every single factor of this situation and give you a best probability.  That is when the manager uses his intuition to make a decision.  Often this is mocked by "rational thinkers", however those people must consider the fact that the unconscious mind is a better aggregator and decision maker on certain subjects with lots of random info.  Sometimes it's better to trust your gut.  The assumption I am making, though, is that the person making the decision is well experienced and has a base of conscious and sub conscious information to draw from.  For example, Joe Torre's gut about baseball decisions should be relied on more than say Bill Clinton's.  Torre has a lifetime of baseball experience.

I am not laying claim that statistics and sabermetrics should be thrown to the side in favor of intuition.  I'm just making the claim that some decisions aren't best served by using flawed data such as sabermetrics, and in lieu of better information one should use their intuition if they have the experience to draw from.

Rothbard belongs the Austrian School of Economics, proponents of the free market who despise central banking.  Rothbard makes a compelling case and in a very readable, laymen way.  Rothbard explains the ideas behind central banking and how they create inflation, though purporting to control inflation.  Beyond explaining the Federal Reserve, Rothbard shows how it was implemented in the US and the drivers behind it.  It's incredible to believe how much power JP Morgan and Rockefeller had in the early 1900's.

Rothbard describes an almost ominous and conspiratorial implementation of the Federal Reserve.  Even if I believed this to be true, which I may, what I find lacking was an analysis or description of how they justified the needs or benefits of a central banking system.  Furthermore, I would like Rothbard to counter more ideas from proponents of central banking.  Not necessarily from bankers but from economists.

I look forward to reading more of Rothbard's work.  I can't say yet I'm a follower of his ideas but I find many compelling, enough to want me to read more.

First, the election of Barack Obama was an historical event and symbolizes the success of so many people's struggles throughout history that Zinn chronicles.  Zinn makes the point over and over again that the equality and freedom won for blacks was literally fought and paid for in blood through the people rising up.  The government did not give the blacks equality, it was not their's to give, in fact the US Government did little to help the movements and did much to hinder them.  Read about Bobby Kennedy's time as Attorney General.  The people are the source of power for change and justice, not the government.  Does this sound familiar?  It should as it was the central theme of Barack Obama's campaign and promises.  However, if Zinn's book shows us, we should be skeptical of Obama as every single President before him has done little to change the inequitable system that protects and enhances the elite in society through misguided policy.  I want to hope and believe that Obama is different but his actions will have to prove it to me, until then I will be skeptical.

Another related theme that Zinn discusses is the concept of Patriotism.  In recent years Patriotism is used as a Scarlet Letter, "either you're with us or against us."  The most deceitful tactic is implying that disagreeing with the government is unpatriotic.  Zinn makes it clear that love of country is not love of government.  We as a society have to unravel the brainwashing that started as children that intertwines government and country.  Zinn also makes the complaint that most classical history tells the story of states and their government as if they were on some noble, theatrical stage, ignoring the actual people. 

Finally, with the events recently I believe that in the near future, political consciousness will once again be raised to unprecedented levels.  The people of the United States will stand up to demand for equality through classes.  The economic crises has seen the US Government give a mind boggling amount of money to Banks and Big Corporations, while meanwhile people are losing their jobs, houses, and means of living at a pace we haven't seen in decades.  The greed of the corporations led us down this path, with the government allowing it, what's going to happen when millions of people realize not only have they been robbed, but robbed of everything?  My answer:  I believe that if events continue down this road that we will have an economic revolution soon.  It will be a transformation to a system that is more just and equitable. Whether Barack Obama can lead that will be interesting, but if I am right he will not be able to deny it.