Something Columbus can do with the horse he rode in on....

This week is a bit of a departure for me. There will be some humor, sure, but I wanted to address something serious, in my own way. I would just like to say that I'm glad I work for an employer who does not observe Columbus Day. I think it's pretty offensive that there are still places that "celebrate" this as a holiday, honoring a person who basically discovered a slab of rock which was already discovered hundreds of years earlier, and ignoring the rest of the story.

Why don't we celebrate Bjarni Herjolfsson Day? Arguably, that would be more accurate, and certainly borne of less questionable morality. One reason for this biased history I've read is that the previous discoveries were not widely known at that time, so Columbus's was the first that was widely publicized. Ah, okay, I think I understand now. We're saying that widespread ignorance is a good excuse for perpetuating ignorance, right? So, if you don't know something, it's okay to educate others on false histories. That makes sense, right? So, if there were large groups of people who didn't know that Gutenberg invented movable type, it would be okay to call it a discovery ascribed to, say, the New York Times. (Interestingly enough, that's the type of story you might read in the New York Times. Ooh! Journalism burn!)

Now, before I continue, don't get me wrong: I can already anticipate people rising up and crying out, "How dare you call me ignorant, I just didn't know that information!" Well, that's not what I'm saying - there are still people out there who don't actually know the extent of the negative deeds committed by Columbus. Those aren't the ones I'm calling "ignorant," because they just haven't heard the true story yet. The ones who are truly ignorant are those who know the real story and simply stick their heads in the sand and ignore it. To see evidence and pretend it doesn't exist, or to hear facts and simply ignore them is the definition of ignorance. (That would be what we English-speaking peoples call a "root word.") Specifically, that ignorance is perpetrated by government leaders and historians who would see textbooks and history books written (and government holidays celebrated) in support of a history written largely with blinders worn.

To those people who haven't heard the story, I hope you'll hear it now and share it with others when you hear of the supposedly "great" exploits of the Columbus about whose deeds we are taught a saccharine and falsely heroic account. Accounts of the early days of his voyage are largely accurate - sailing from Spain after the end of the Ottoman-Neapolitan War and Granada conquest. His initial visit to the island of Hispaniola was a peaceful encounter with the Arawak tribe.

This is where things go downhill, and accounts begin to diverge from one another. In Columbus's subsequent returns, gifts were exchanged, which is another primary reason Columbus is celebrated in place of our old Viking friend Bjarni - he established two-way commerce. (Fun fact, Bjarni was also the name of the first-known form of children's entertainment. He was a purple "Viking Dinosaur," with a long blond beard, an iron-horned skullcap, and a trademark song of "I kill you, you kill me, but not if I kill you first, you see." Not to be confused with loveable gumshoe Bjarni Mjiller.)

I digress. I would again argue that this is not necessarily the best reason to celebrate someone - because they opened up the opportunity for wealthy European merchants and trading companies to become even more wealthy, and in exchange giving precious little. I think the more important exchange involved commodities which aren't typically traded on the free market. Native Americans received things like Smallpox and the concept of slavery, while Europeans received things like land that didn't belong to them (by murdering most of the inhabitants), a claim on many Natives' eternal souls (after, y'know, murdering them) and treaties which the Euros and resulting Americans had no intention of honoring (because they got in the way of all that murdering.)

The amazing part is, even in some accounts which acknowledge the atrocities committed by the first waves of explorers, somehow Columbus escapes scrutiny! Are we so brainwashed as a society that we're willing to practically deify a person and fool ourselves even further into believing he had nothing to do with the actions of a vast majority of his crew? Really? That would be like saying Hernán Cortéz was really a saint, it was his followers who wiped out the Aztecs beyond his control - Cortéz just stood on the beach saying, "Really, we should try talking about this first!" What a nice guy. Let's have Hernán Cortéz Day.

I think it would be better to have Dan Cortese Day.

No, Columbus was just as much a part of the raping, dismembering, murdering, and enslaving of the Native American people as the rest of his fellow explorers. Capture and enslave the strongest of the men, working them in silver mines (after he finally accepted there wasn’t much gold to be found.) Rape the female tribe members, then string them up with the rest who are too young, old, or sick to work in the mines. Hanged and burned, or enslaved. That was the legacy of Columbus, not just that of his followers and fellow explorers.

One last thing before I step off my soapbox. As a man with some Cherokee ancestors, am I the only one who sees a sort of ultimate and final ignominy in the fact that the grand “Admiral of the Sea” had NO clue where he had landed, and because of that, an entire race of people have been mis-named? He thought he landed in the Indies, so he figured, let’s call them all Indians, overlooking the fact that they, y’know, already had names. Never mind the fact he wasn’t in the Indies, and even after they figured that part out, they continued to call them Indians! That would be like someone sailing from Mongolia in the 1400’s, landing in Alaska and, assuming they had landed on an island of Russia, calling all of the Inuit people “East Russians.” And then somehow convincing people to call them that FOREVER, even after realizing their mistake. Or more appropriately, like Leif Erikson landing in Newfoundland (which he did) and calling the Mi’kmaq people “West Icelanders” (which he certainly did not, because he wasn’t ignorant and stubborn like Columbus.)

Now, were ALL Native Americans peaceful? Not necessarily. Many, like the Mohawk and Chiricahua didn’t necessarily need a reason for war. But just because some tribes were at war with each other doesn’t mean all tribes should be painted with the same brush, or that any of them should be considered savages. The tribes were capable of taking care of their own disputes, and any who warred without cause always ran the risk of encountering a tribe who’s fight or flight response slanted more toward defending their families and fighting back rather than running and saving themselves. The Native tribes certainly didn't need the sort of "help" the frontiersmen ended up offering.

It’s little surprise the settlers to follow thought it was okay to squat on the Native’s lands, to poach their food supplies for nothing but skins, to murder and label as savages those that had the nerve to defend themselves, their families, their land, and their livelihoods, and to strong-arm the proudest into accepting treaties the settlers had no intention of honoring. No wonder they had so little respect for the Native peoples of North America. The man who started it all didn’t even have enough respect to get their names right.

Here endeth the lesson.

Fever Dreams for the Fashion Conscious

So, everyone's heard the whole, "No white after labor day" rule. That's one of those things that nobody really pays attention to anymore, and it seems like it's "out" as a rule. But that doesn't stop people from needlessly telling others they're in violation of a now-defunct social order. Either they're deliberately being difficult or maybe they just didn't get the memo. Neverthelessi, it seems like half the population has heard that this is no longer a "rule" and are willing to argue the fact that they can wear whatever the Hell color they choose whenever they want, and the other half believe that THOSE people are just making excuses to cover their fashion faux-pas.

 

Whichever side you fall on, I thought now would be a good time to share some other obscure, little-known rules about clothing selection that you may or may not know. You'll thank me later!

 

Don't wear white to a wedding unless you're the bride. Everyone should know this one, you don't want to show-up the bride.

 

Don't wear green on Arbor Day. Trees are people too, insomuch as they aren't. You wouldn't want to hurt their feelings by overshadowing their greeness with your emerald-hued Lacoste polo.

 

Don't wear corduroy on the second Wednesday before Flag Day. Fun fact - did you know Betsy Ross didn't actually finish designing the flag until the Wednesday before George Washington needed it for a major textiles convention? Also, Betsy Ross was a dressmaker who would only craft things from gingham and worsted wool, because she had a visceral hatred for all things corduroy? Many speculate this is because she originally tried several times (and failed miserably) to sew a flag with a denim starfield over green and brown wide-wale cordury. In honor of that personality quirk, we have this rule. Keep the swish-swish in your closet on this day.

 

Don't wear clothing with patterns on March 14. Mathematicians love to celebrate "Pi Day," (3-14) but it is considered highly insulting to the number itself to wear anything which "repeats." (On an unrelated list, you are also advised not to eat chili on this day, for essentially the same reason.)

 

It's a well-established fact that 87% of all humans love unprovable statistics. Because of that, many UN Nations which celebrate "Statistics Day" encourage their citizens not to wear a red loincloth while throwing their mother-in-law's meatloaf at a family of rabbits. (**Statistics Day is not celebrated in North America. Crazy foreigners.)

 

When visiting Spain, do not wear tennis shoes to La Tomatina. This is less a fashion rule and more just a common sense thing. Unless you like permanently orange shoes.

 

While vertical stripes are slimming, you are encouraged NOT to wear them to sporting events. Though you won't be on the field, it will stimulate a response which would make Pavlov weep with pride. Inexplicably, people will feel compelled to yell obscenities at you every time they hear a whistle blow.

 

It is recommended by many that you do not wear your sunglasses at night, especially while operating heavy machinery. Because it's night. You could kill someone, fool.

 

Early Spring is known as the official beginning of sea turtle mating season. As such, for your own safety, and the self-respect of the turtles, it is strongly recommended for this 2-3 month period that you don't wear turtlenecks in coastal towns. I'd prefer not to say more than that.

 

Finally, during the summer months, it is vital that you not wear any type of shirt which exposes your midriff. This is especially important if you have good abs. Most people don't realize this, but new legislation has been passed in our country which requires anyone who sees this outfit/ab combo to yell, "We've got a situation over here!" at which point anyone within earshot must huddle around you and begin pumping their fist skyward and shouting "Beat that beat!"

 

Trust me, it's a cult-like behavior to witness, and I can only imagine what it would be like to experience it. It could fundamentally change your life for the worse and permanently skew your view of reality. Obviously, no one has to follow any of these "rules" laid out here, but don't say i didn't warn you.... Do yourselves a favor and don't open yourselves up to that kind of mental torment.

Toyota - now the passengers AND the car are screaming

Okay, so, the Toyota corporation this week announced that it is working on a way to make the Prius noisier, as a safety feature. This is announced at the same time as a sweeping Corolla and Matrix recall because of spontaneous engine stalling.

Wow, Toyota, I just want to congratulate you for having your priorities straight. I mean, if I run a multi-billion dollar corporation, I'm going to want to spend equal if not MORE time fixing an aesthetic issue as I have spent fixing actual problems with the cars.

Seriously?? You have cars which REFUSE to stop, and cars which stop spontaneously. And you actually spent time arguing with your loyal customers as to the validity of their claims! Yes, because it was a logical assumption on your part that drivers made a coordinated effort during the month of May to drive their vehicles VOLUNTARILY into the sides of donut shops and hair salons. Only reluctantly did you issue the recall, but finally did.

Now, you've really taken the hint on this Corolla/Matrix recall, because there was little hesitation in issuing the recall almost immediately after the problem was reported. I just hope you come up with a better "fix" than you did the first time through on the acceleration problem - although I'm sure if there's a way to fix it by "wedging a tiny thing between two larger things" you'll jump at the chance.

But it seems like this "car noise" thing is something that really could have waited. You've got cars driving into buildings, and other cars that just die on the road. But what's this? Our hybrids are quiet? Whoa, let's not waste any time here! Frankly, I can't imagine any drivers actually wanting their cars to sound like a cross between Fran Drescher, an air raid siren, and a ghost, but that's what you've delivered, by God!

I mean, fixing that in the midst of all the other problems facing Toyotas right now? It would've been like Lincoln signing an anti-green leafy vegetable law while that whole slavery thing was still needing to be fixed. Better yet, it would be like a Silverware company trying to make their butter knives shinier, while ignoring the fact that they have a pesky "exploding fork" problem.

Now, I get that the reason for doing this is to make pedestrians feel safer. People were apparently getting run over by silent hybrid cars that sneaked up behind them at 5 MPH or less. Now, first of all, to the pedestrians, I'd have to say, "Suck it up, people!" I mean, it's 5 miles per hour! If I swing a fly swatter at a fly at less than 5 MPH, it doesn't kill the fly! It thinks it's been hit by a tiny trampoline and calls its friends over for a birthday party.

But better yet, I mean, let's say that 5 MPH is deadly fast. Sure, someone could fall if they're startled, break something, hit their head, I get that. So, should we really be putting the responsibility on the pedestrians for being hit? Do we really hear this problem and say, "Well, if the car had just been noisier, they could have gotten out of the way!" I hear it and think, "Why the hell did the driver just keep going and hit the person??" Is this engine noise designed so people can just pay no attention whatsoever to the road and blame the pedestrians for not getting out of the way faster? If you were actually looking at the road, you would have seen the walker... so did you run over them on purpose?

Here's my final thought - if my engine is so quiet that the person in front of me can't hear me behind them, I can think of something that DOES make noise on the car - it's the horn. Honk that. Don't run over the person. And for the love of God don't make the car sound like an electronic Bjork, especially when you already have trouble making the cars stop, and also making them go. People have been trying to make Bjork just stop and go away for years, and we see how well that's worked....

After Shave and Vehicular Radar

Two things are on my mind today (aside from idiot drivers.)

 

First, I see that Infiniti has a new thing in their cars called the "Blind Spot Intervention System," where the car will sound an alarm if you try to change lanes into a location where a car may have been hidden in your blind spot.

 

You're not going to believe this, but I actually have had this system in each car I've owned, the current one being a 1987 Corvette, but it has a slightly different name. In this system, a device called "my face" is mounted on something called "my head," and swivels on this thing called "the neck." Okay, now stay with me - I know this sounds very technical and complicated, but, somehow, the head knows that I'm about to change lanes, so it swivels on the neck, and allows the face to SEE if there are cars in the lane next to you. It's a remarkable system, but it's been available on vehicles all the way back to the old 1895 Benz Motorwagen. The system even has the same name as it has had all these years: it's called, "Looking."

 

The other thing that's bugging me is a bit weirder. I usually use after shave lotion after I shave, the electric shaver can be a bit irritating. So, as I pick it up today, I notice a warning on the back of the bottle which says, "Caution: Do not use on broken, irritated, or sore skin." Now, no broken skin I understand, that's bad, and I think people with leprosy have bigger things to worry about than tightening their pores. But irritated and sore? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the purpose of after shave lotion? That's a lot like saying, "Don't take this headache medicine if you are experiencing headaches." Or, "This wall paint should not be used to cover up other colors." Or even, "Don't watch this Vin Diesel movie if you have problems with low self-esteem.

 

Or does the lotion company have another solution, maybe? They want me to buy another product to soothe the irritated skin, BEFORE putting on the after shave lotion? In which case, the after shave lotion serves WHAT purpose, again? Trust me, I want the stuff to soothe the irritation, I don't just have this overwhelming need to feel that my face is slightly damp. Know your place, after shave people.

 

WAIT, I figured it out - the after shave is designed to enhance the effectiveness of "the face" so it's easier to spot cars in your blind spot. The companies are working together, maybe!

 

No? Hm. Thought I was on to something there. What was my point again?

 

Oh, I remember - bad drivers suck.

Another Idiot Driver

Real men of genius. Here's to you, trailer towing F-250 guy. In a world where idiotic driving is commonplace, you are a clear standout. (Rocker voice: "Dumbest of the Dumb!") Knowing your exit is coming up in a quarter mile, do you stay in your lane and patiently wait to turn off? Why would you do a damn fool thing like that? (Rocker: "Sense is for sissies!") You cross not one, not two, but all three lanes of traffic in a single swoop, to pass the cars in each. But wait, what's that you see over there? Why, it's the lane where you started. And God knows you have to get back to it immediately. (Rocker: "EXIT!")

 

To paraphrase the great John Fitzgerald Kennedy, some people see things that are and ask why. You see my car in the lane next to you and ask, why not... nearly smash off the front of it with my rusty-ass steel trailer. (Rocker: "Defy the laws of physics!") In one smooth motion, you fly back across the lanes with a careless ignorance that reminds me of... carelessly ignorant people. (Rocker: "DICK!") In a time when there obviously isn't enough death and destruction in the world, in a place where traffic backups are as common as a morning cup of coffee, we salute you, Mr. Trailer Towing F-250 Guy. (Mr. Trailer Towing F-250 Guy....)

The A-Team... and movie reviews in general....

Okay, something a bit different this time. I want to preface this by saying I am not trying to influence anyone's opinion of this movie or any movie, I prefer people watch films for themselves and make their own decisions, and then see if they agree with the reviews. That's part of the problem with the movie-going experience today. People tend to allow bloggers and reviewers to spoon-feed them opinions, rather than putting forth the effort to go see it themselves and form their own opinions. As a society, we really have to learn to take with a grain of salt what these bloggers and reviewers say. I wish I had a nickel for every time I read a review which completely bashed a film, only to go see the film for myself and end up enjoying it. Don't cheat yourself of a good entertainment opportunity based on someone else's opinion. Frankly, I'd be interested to know when was the last time these disagreeable, bitter, curmudgeonly balls of vitriol actually had an enjoyable experience, from a film or anything else for that matter. From what I've seen in the world, most people who seem to have a forcefully negative opinion about EVERYTHING either have an ulterior motive, or simply don't know what they're talking about. And really, if negative movie reviews aren't designed to hijack people's opinions of films, then why do reviewers make these reviews available before the film actually releases? Over the past week I've read several reviews of, for example, The Other Guys, which still doesn't release for another four days.

And believe me, for those people who HAVE seen for themselves the movie I'm going to discuss (or any movie,) and decide they hate it, then great, God bless, you've done your duty (Lord knows I have a couple of friends who loved the show but hated the movie - but they actually went and saw it with an open mind.) Like I said, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. But for those people who decide NOT to see a movie simply because of what someone else thinks, or go into a movie with their minds made up they're going to hate it, or decide that a movie is going to be bad because it's based on a TV show (and is therefore unimaginative) or had 11 different writers (and therefore probably could be described by a word which rhymes with "dusterchuck") and write a review based on those preconceived notions, then, shame on them.
 

That said, I watched the A-Team yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was skeptical, because there had been quite a bit of negative reviews for it, but I went into this the same way I go into every film - open minded. For this particular film, I like the source material, I like the actors, and I like the premise, so I gave it a shot. I wasn't disappointed. Then again, I'm a 31-year-old man and grew up watching the show, so I sort of fall into the target demographic anyway.

 
***Spoilers ahead - beware!

See, the trick is, you have to know what to expect when you go into it. I believe a person's enjoyment of a film is directly proportional to their expectations. If you go into this film expecting Oscar-winning art direction, deep character development, or Liam Neeson shouting "Release the Kraken!" every five minutes, then you'll be disappointed. If you go in expecting a fun summer action movie, then you'll enjoy it. That's all.

I've read some HORRIBLE reviews from a lot of people (read: Deadline Hollywood, Box Office Mojo, Hollywood Reporter) complaining that the plot is too shallow (or non-existent) to which I have to say, "Did you SEE the original show??" The plot can be easily summed up for any episode of the TV show, as well as the movie:

1. Someone is a bad guy. They are often wearing all black.

2. There will be a plan (which, at some point, will come together.)

3. The plan will be executed by the same 4 wrongly-convicted, escaped Army Rangers.

4. At some point, everything will seem to be going to shit, but wait! It's really part of the plan.

I'm going to stop using the word plan for the time being. But that's really it. Nothing earth shaking or high concept. It's intrigue, twists, switcheroos, explosions, and light-hearted action.

In the film, the origin story was rehashed a bit, to make it more current, but it boiled down to a group of Army Rangers meeting during a generic mission, then staying together for 8 years, 80 missions in Iraq. During a mission to recover money-printing plates from an Iraqi insurgent, they are framed for a crime they didn't commit, by a group of independent contractors looking to print their own money. Blackforest is led by Pike, dressed in the aforementioned all-black body armor and bodysuit.

During the mission-gone-bad, the man who sent Smith and his Team on the mission to recover the plates (General Morrison) is supposedly killed, but it turns out later he was in league with Pike to get the plates and split the profits.

There was a wild card in all of this, though - a man from the CIA calling himself "Lynch" was responsible for Hannibal and company being sent on this mission. As it turns out, Lynch is the linchpin (look, a pun!) in the crime for which the A-Team was framed. Lynch is your typical "evil mastermind" type of baddie who runs things from the shadows, appears to be "one of the good guys," but turns out later to be anything but. Can't blame people for not knowing - after all, he wasn't wearing all-black. This does fit with the "bad guy rule of three" where there should always be an obvious baddie, a shadowy mastermind, and a turncoat that goes bad and works with the criminals.

As expected, the team breaks out of jail and goes on a mission to clear their names, get revenge, and finish the original mission by recovering the stolen plates.

In a bit of a twist, instead of Hannibal being the one to come up with the plan every time, Face ends up coming up with the big plan in the end of the film, sort of redeeming himself for always being the impulsive guy with poor judgment. The plan is carried off successfully, but not without a hitch or two, a few massive explosions, and the occasional "wild swing from hanging cables to land on precarious footing which seemed to come from nowhere."

In the end, the crew is redeemed, but locked back up for escaping from prison, despite the wrongful accusations which landed them there in the first place (and as Hannibal says, it's still a crime to escape from prison, even if you were wrongly convicted.)

I have neglected to mention that Charissa Sosa is an agent tasked with finding and reclaiming the plates. She is integral in the final plan working out, and ultimately she reconciles with her ex, Face, and helps them clear their names. However, in the course of clearing their names and receiving the thanks of the CIA, she inadvertently aids in their recapture due to their escape. On an odd side note, I had no idea her name was Sosa until about halfway through the film, even though she's introduced (through a visceral exchange with Face) in the first 20 minutes of the film. Does that seem odd to anyone else?

So, in the spirit of the plot breakdown above, here is how character development (and archetypes) will work for A-Team films and episodes:

1. Hannibal will be cool.

2. Face will be a sarcastic slickster.

3. Murdoch will be crazy.

4. BA will beat people up and be afraid of planes. He may also drink milk (Mr. T version only.)

5. The obvious bad guy will be obvious and bad.

6. The "ringleader" will be evil but less obvious (though, he should be pretty obvious, too.)

7. The turncoat will disappoint people with his lack of honor.

8. Jon Hamm will play Don Draper with the code name Lynch (taking over for the previous bad Lynch.)**

9. Jessica Biel will play Jessica Biel. 'Nuff said.**

**Applies to film only.

On a couple of side notes, first, BA's "pick up Pike and drop him on his head" thing is probably one of the coolest kills I've seen in an action movie.

Also, in closing, who knew that those little electronic voice boxes from talking dolls are so high-tech they can be used to recreate the voice of any human? That's impressive technology for a Betsy Wetsy.

Game Week, Day 5 - Donkey Kong Country Returns

I love video games, I really do. Which is why I'm sad that Jimmy Fallon's game week ended with something of a fizzle, at least compared to the other great games this week. Because now I have to be mean. That's doubly painful given that I've been a Nintendo fan all my life, and it's really the company whose systems I cut my gaming "teeth" on as a child, the one with the fondest childhood memories.

Tonight's installment of game week is Donkey Kong Country Returns. Really? Nintendo, I remember DKC as being, basically, a re-skinned version of a Mario-style game. This comparison was most painfully obvious when DKC 64 came out, looking a lot like Mario 64 with simians.

You couldn't have brought a different game into the next generation of systems? Something like Pilotwings, maybe? Or Earthbound? How cool would that be? Even something quirky like A Boy and His Blob would be a blast in Wii-style, maybe in first person or third person over the shoulder, flipping him a jelly bean by waggling the Wiimote, and working through the game's trademark puzzles. You couldn't even give us a clever re-spelling of "country" with a "K" maybe?

No? Sticking with Donkey Kong Country? Okay, then. This week's project was about games that are on the way, not games that would be cool if they happened. So here goes.

DKC seems to be a visually stunning rehash of the series instalments, with a few twists and additions. There is definitely a focus on cooperative multiplayer in this one, teaming up to traverse parts of the various levels, or having Diddy ride piggy-back on Donkey to be carried around like a squawky, peanut-throwing Jansport backpack.

There are also a few new moves, perfected for Wii-motions. But all in all, this doesn't seem like a wildly innovative step for the franchise, like you'd expect from the next-gen systems. Super Mario Galaxy is an amazing example of how a company can take a series from its previous console and revolutionize it for the current generation. DKC Returns doesn't feel like it has that same wow factor, and the "new" stuff feels like what I would basically expect from one version of a game to the next on the SAME system - nothingly wildly different, just a few new twists....

There. I said it. I didn't want to, but I'm just being honest. I still love you, though, Nintendo. We straight?

Thanks folks for giving my late-night "project" a read! I hope you enjoyed it, and I'll bring more reviews like this to you in the future!