Transformers

Just as Valentine’s Day was invented by Hallmark, Transformers was sponsored in full by General Motors, with small contributions by Ford Motor Company and the US Air Force.

Or so it seemed.

At least I know that I had a hard time figuring out if Michael Bay’s nerd-fantasy-come-true was one big commercial for American made cars, the air force, the army, or anti-Hummerism (some Abercrombie-clad, collar-popping, tool job high school football star drives one, and I think it was supposed to make me hate him more. It worked.). The autobots curiously enough come down to earth and choose to take the form of a Camaro, some crazy Pontiac, a GMC SUV, and a Mac truck. I hear the plot line for the sequel has already been leaked, and the autobots are passively destroyed by a fleet of Toyotas and Hondas. The superior gas mileage and service records eventually win, and no fighting or action actually occurs because the rising gas prices shut down the GMC, the Pontiac has transmission issues, and the Camaro has electrical problems. Optimus Prime in his grief takes the form of a hybrid and lives in hiding and shame in Portland.

Bay also followed suit with most movies in our “hate-on-the-president” era and snuck in a shot at our commander in chief with an unmistakably lazy, incompetent, out-of-the-loop leader with a dim-witted southern drawl.

Also following suit to the ambiguous patriotism trend in movies this season, we see an impeccably diverse band of soldiers (weird Hispanic, attractive Caucasian, slick black dude, and a guy with glasses. Somehow you need all those races and a guy with glasses to round everything out) who overcome all odds to save the world and distribute freedom at any cost. I expected to receive a more tangible souvenir to go with the movie, like a few pom-poms or maybe a flag that said “Go America: Blow things up.” Instead, my $11 bought me a video cocktail of testosterone, CGI, and cavalier military men- a cocktail that transforms regular politically ignorant moviegoers to equally politically ignorant “patriots” wondering if we use those same weapons to blow up terrorists because if so that is awesome.

Before I sound like I hated the movie, let me at least assure you that I was thoroughly entertained and that it was visually amazing. The CGI and special effects were stunning and fluid. I am ashamed to say that I got a strange feeling of giddiness when the car-to-robot transformations I remember making with plastic toys as a kid were there right on screen, faster and more realistic than ever. Watching fighter jets and tanks shoot huge robots that** have even more powerful weapons attached to their hands is extremely entertaining. Imagine the fluid and graceful choreography of The Matrix applied to gigantic robots with gun-hands.

Therein lies the problem with the movie, as the graphics and visual effects functioned as a huge spotlight to amplify the weaknesses in acting. It wasn’t terrible, and Shia LaBeouf (Disturbia) was excellently sarcastic and comical. Unfortunately, no other character established his or herself as more than just a “character”.  While there was once an age where movies were full of humans and sprinkled with a little bit of computer effects, now they are full of computer effects and sprinkled with a little bit of human. Even the humans are more “effects” than actual people, and fit into the categories of hot, funny, soldier, or disposable (these were stepped on, crushed under debris, or similarly killed). 

It was entertaining, and a movie that you can see with a bunch of guys and look at each other after a big explosion or fight scene and say “Are you kidding me? That was AWESOME!” It’s summer, and the time for thinking is gone. Watch the explosions and go in with little expectations. If you can watch this movie and remember the cartoons and toys, I believe you will really enjoy this movie, if only to covet Michael Bay for being able to make money by creating a movie about something every boy has dreamed about.

** Note: When typing the phrase “huge robots that have even more powerful weapons” I originally intended to say who have instead of that have. Spell Check wouldn’t let me, and apparently, Microsoft Word does not recognize a robot as worthy of being described as a who. I was upset about this at first, and couldn’t believe that my computer didn’t think a robot could be a who. This is ironic to me, because after watching a movie about robots that (who) ran around and talked I came home, sat at my computer, and tried to grammatically describe a robot as a who. After realizing that the computer was more grammatically savvy than I, I gave up and stuck with the way the computer wanted me to write the sentence. After all, if my computer recognized a robot as a who, it is only logical to assume that my computer would recognize itself as a who, and with its (his?) superior knowledge in math and grammar would be too big of a threat both for national security and for me to use anymore and I would have to destroy it (him).

The Worst Day of My Life

Two birds with one stone

I don't think we should close our borders to Mexico. I know people are pissed that there are alot of illegal immigrants, but nobody has really given me a good reason why, other than the idea that they drive our healthcare costs up because they cant pay their medical bills. Apparently, they are stealing jobs from Americans. I looked hard and long for records of a white man losing his dishwashing job to a Mexican and I couldn't find anything. 

I dont feel we should get rid of the welfare system either. I know that people are upset because it is abused, and it seems to just encourage and facilitate comfortable unemployment, but if we got rid of it altogether we would be even further neglecting the poor and needy in our country. It doesn't seem right to discontinue something good just because people abuse it. That would be like closing down a soup kitchen because some semi-homeless guys were coming in eating all the soup and the full-blown homeless weren't getting enough soup. The problem isnt the soup, its the kitchen.

Well, maybe the real problem isn't the kitchen, it's the way the kitchen is set up, and how it allows itself to be abused. It tosses soup out the window and complains that it doesnt get to the right people, or that people are eating too much.

What we should do is make a rule where you only get to live on welfare for 6 months. That's it. When your time is up, you have to provide proof that you have a job. If not, we toss you over the fence over into Mexico and allow one lucky family to take your place in america, and work the low paying job you dont want to work in. Maybe some type of lottery or game show, whatever, but the point is there are a ton of families just dying to come over here and make minimum wage. 

This kills two birds with one stone. No more welfare-mongers, and immigration now becomes osmosis. Or equilibrium, whichever.

The reverse-immigration (exigration?) would flood Mexico with lazy Americans unwilling to work hard, while the Mexican families here would work hard and since nobody would be around to abuse the welfare system, our economy would boom. If we got really ambitious, maybe every year at Cinco de Mayo we would all meet at the border, make some s'mores, and one special exiled welfare family would have the chance to come back to America and get a job. After experiencing poverty and living in filth they would appreciate the opportunity to work and no longer yearn for the teat of welfare. 

Slowly by surely every family we toss over the fence into Mexico would come back useful to society, get off their lazy asses and start some kind of company and create more jobs for future prodigal welfare sons. They would also be bilingual from their little field trip and be able to staff their businesses with Mexicans more efficiently. On Cinco de Mayo the newly rich Mexicans (they got promoted because they worked hard) see some of their amigos and rat out some welfare loafers and bring in a whole slew of useful human beings and the cycle continues. 

Problem solved.

The only chink in the armor of this ingenious plan is that 20 years from now the United States could quite possibly consist solely of Mexicans, and Mexico would be infested with lazy Americans. Except the Mexicans dont vacation in Cancun because the lazy Americans are at home watching Wheel of Fortune in trailers instead of working at the resorts. This problem would resolve itself because since Mexico is entirely comprised of hillbilly-welfare-moochers, there is no welfare system for them. This means no cable or skoal, ultimately resulting in extinction.

This actually turns out to be good, because then America can expand into Mexico, use all the dead moochers as fossil fuel, gas prices go down, and we all live in happy harmony eating tex-mex and watching spanish soap operas with slightly better acting. Best of both worlds. Everyone is happy.

Until South America starts to jump the fence...   

people are stupid.

Today I joined a group on facebook called "For every 1,000 people that join this group I will donate 1 dollar for Darfur" made by some guy Marek Grodzicki from NYU. Cool idea I think, and whether or not he actually follows through, I think it's a good idea. If he did what he said, then he has already donated 400 or so dollars for Darfur.

Interestingly enough, there are a slew of comments posted on the message board for the group that all basically say "Sorry to burst your bubble but none of your donated money actually gets there. It either gets there and is taken by warlords or a good deal of it is skimmed off the top to pay the salaries of the administration of the organizations." UNICEF specifically was targeted in these comments as well as other organizations, and while the majority of the feedback from the group was positive, there was a suprising number of voices who were either cynical or just stupid enough to say that the endeavor made by this student was worthless because it was just a drop in the bucket.

I think that the opinions in those posts are frighteningly more common than I would like to imagine. While I know that there are many people out there who are doing so much to help people across the world, it amazes me how much this pessimistic attitude results in inactivity. So many never bother to donate or support or even so much as spend a few seconds thinking about genocide and widespread poverty because they don't see it as worth it, or dont see how they could ever make a difference.

If we are only compelled into action against poverty, sickness, murder, and injustice when we perceive that our individual action will result in direct and immediate improvement then two things will happen: we will never act and we will never see the results we dream of. It is important that we (myself included) act, even when it seems like it will make little or no difference. In the age when I can find a couch or roomate within 2 hours using myspace, facebook, or craig's list it is ridiculous that I continue to beleive I have no power to affect a different continent.

I cannot single handedly save a life in Darfur, no more than I could singlehandedly save a life in America. But with the network of communication that I am already a part of via Facebook, Myspace, and other similar avenues, I can contribute to much larger organizations that can do something.

The claim that 500 dollars wont make a difference, one village wont make a difference is sadly a little true. But it is not true enough to excuse my inaction. If i donated 100 dollars today to impoverished countries and 50 of those dollars went to the organization's leaders or was stolen by guerrillas or warlords, 50 of it would still make it to the people who needed it. That 50 dollars is better than the 0 dollars I would give if i gave up, if i decided it wasn't worth it unless all 100 made it.

Anything is better than nothing, and if 90% of the donations never reach those who need it, then at least I gave, at least I tried, and at least 10% percent made it to those people.

On a (sort of) unrelated note, who cares if it becomes a fad to adopt babies? (Stick with me here) I actually heard someone rip Angelina Jolie apart the other day, when they said they saw a film she was in called Beyond Borders and how basically she got the idea to adopt a little foreign baby because she was in a movie about relief work. Now she made it cool to adopt foreign babies and nobody is doing it for the right reasons anymore, they are just grabbing these babies up because its cool. First it was those Sidekick cell phone things, then little dogs like Paris Hilton's, now it's African babies.

Are you freaking kidding me?

So what? She went over to Africa and saw how awful it was there and she felt compelled to save one kid. What have you done to help Africa? And ok, maybe people did catch on and start doing it (Madonna) but who cares? At least a few kids are getting good health care and not dying from eating garbage and drinking water filled with human waste.

It's alot easier to sit on your ass, watching American Idol, and come up with stupid reasons why you won't do anything for third world countries than it is to try to do something when there's a chance it wont make that much of a difference.

Nothing interesting today. I will post the days events in bullet format.

• I have a rash on my arm that looks like poison ivy. Not sure what it is. Pretty scared.
• I watched all the episodes of Heroes I missed online.
• In between episodes i did a total of 400 push ups.
• Studied for the NCLEX
• Walked outside to check the mail after I realized I hadn't been outdoors since last night. I knew there wasn't going to be mail but I needed to go outside. I saw a squirrel and a kid riding a bike.
• Took a nap after my exploits outdoors failed miserably.
• The rash seems to also be on my chin.