I have seen many Rube Goldberg videos off of Youtube, but I think this one may be my favorite. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Red bull fan. I do, however, think this is an original take on a classic. It features some fantastic athletic ability, showcases athletes Red Bull sponsors, and is just fun to watch.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Young girl is football phenom
This little nine year old's name is Sam Gordon, and she is impressive. To really appreciate just how good she is, you have to watch her moves, so I am offering you this video of her crazy-good running-back skills. You don't have to know much about football so see she has got some good moves. If you do know something about football, you will see her doing all the things professional running-backs do; juking, cut-backs, rolls, and amazing bursts of speed that put the bigger boys she plays against to shame.
Here she is.
Here she is.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Best Lines from Plan 9
I love movies.
And much to the consternation of my friends, I also love bad movies. You know, movies like the brilliantly horrible "Plan 9 from Outer Space", Ed Wood's opus. It is horrendous. The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad. So bad it transcends critique and, in my opinion, becomes fun to watch just to appreciate how tragically pathetic it is. It was a sci-fi drama in conception, but now it is a humorously grotesque film with bad science.
Because I am devious and and believe in spreading the misery around, here is a little slice of what I think of as cinema heaven. Here are some of the best examples of poor script-writing taken from "Plan 9 from Outer Space". Enjoy.
And much to the consternation of my friends, I also love bad movies. You know, movies like the brilliantly horrible "Plan 9 from Outer Space", Ed Wood's opus. It is horrendous. The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad. So bad it transcends critique and, in my opinion, becomes fun to watch just to appreciate how tragically pathetic it is. It was a sci-fi drama in conception, but now it is a humorously grotesque film with bad science.
Because I am devious and and believe in spreading the misery around, here is a little slice of what I think of as cinema heaven. Here are some of the best examples of poor script-writing taken from "Plan 9 from Outer Space". Enjoy.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Disturbing
I've known police officers in my life. I've known the kinds of people they were. Now, I want to be nice and say people are people, and there are many grey areas in life, and sometimes people make crappy decisions. But it is difficult being nice.
This following video disgusts me. it makes me vomit a little bit in my mouth each time I watch it.
What disturbs me the most about this is the level of attitude being dished out to innocent people, who are only guilty of being frustrated by an unwarranted harassment, and the abuse of power as an extension of fear. The system is broken when the police are being given rewards for successful harassment.
This following video disgusts me. it makes me vomit a little bit in my mouth each time I watch it.
What disturbs me the most about this is the level of attitude being dished out to innocent people, who are only guilty of being frustrated by an unwarranted harassment, and the abuse of power as an extension of fear. The system is broken when the police are being given rewards for successful harassment.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
What the future holds
I've made predictions about it before, and will share them with you here: We will not see a viable electric car culture until we also see a way to charge the consumer, per mile driven. Maybe that sounds cynical, but we live in a society that has proven time and again that emerging technology can be stifled if it interferes with a successful status-quo. And right now, the status-quo is a a cripplingly manipulated energy market that is holding onto its power (every pun intended) with a death-grip. There is no room for innovation in a market that fears change.
What I find most interesting is how there seem to be two sides to the political argument essentially using the same reasons to promote two differing ideas about future energy use. One side is excited about renewable energy, seeing it as a way to drop dependence on the limited stock of fossil fuels, while the other looks to finding new sources of fossil fuels closer to home so our dependence on such fuel isn't placed in the hands of other countries. I see it the arguments as extensions of fear, and I think it is important we understand what, ultimately, is causing the fear.
On the former side, the fear is a lack of sustainability. Without adequate resources, the prices go up as supply and demand take their inevitable place in the ongoing paradigm. Looking towards renewable seems to be a ridiculously logical step towards alleviating that fear. The only limitation has been a technology that doesn't satisfy the concept; IE relatively primitive batteries that still have an unfavorable weight/charge ratio, especially in comparison to the perfected fossil-fuel motors. Without a technology that either be comparable to the status-quo or exceed it, the incentive to take a backwards step in productivity just isn't there. What you lose in time and capability just doesn't sufficiently offset the cost of redesigning a working system. So, capitalism wins out. And without a market for the technology, there will be no technological research. Sadly it is like asking for a finished product before paying to have one built. Ask any military contractor if that is a way to achieve innovation and they will have a very succinct answer, I am sure.
On the latter side, the fear is control over a necessary base resource. Basic tenant of capitalism: if you can control the market, then you control the consumer. Many countries produce fossil fuels, and there is huge money in bringing that commodity to market Any hiccups in the production of that fuel is an immediately opening for another supplier to crowbar his way into someone else's customer base. Very dog-eat-dog, where the dogs don't mind taking a chomp out of the hands that buy their fuel as well since it is such a base necessity in this modern world. Electricity is not a luxury anymore, it is a necessity in America. I the summer months we are inundated with reports on how many elderly have died from heat-related injuries due to a lack of electricity, for one reason or another. So, it comes down to buy electricity or die. And since electricity is produced, primarily, by fossil fuels it can be rewritten as "purchase fossil fuels or die". Now THAT is a marketing plan! Why even consider giving up a marketing plan that is so perfectly ingrained in society. In fact, we shouldn't be sending all this money overseas to other suppliers... we should be keeping it for ourselves! Control. There is not fear here of what may happen to the consumer over time, just as there is no compassion by the drug-dealer towards his junkie clientele. There is only the potential rewards of ensuring you are the only drug dealer for this neighborhood.
So, we have a commodity that is vital for sustaining a modern society: energy. And we have two conflicting views on how to address this situation. One side believes it is better to supply society with what it needs efficiently, while the other side believes it is best to capitalize on the situation. Ethics aside, simple human greed beats forward-thinking every day.
But I just read an article about the how the Tesla auto company has installed a few recharge stations in California. The product they have produced is a self-sustaining recharging point that uses solar-power to supply itself with electricity. So... imagine driving around in a electric car and recharging it doesn't cost you a dime. Here's the kicker, though; it will take about a half-hour to recharge your vehicle enough to drive 3 more hours. This is, of course, at the current stage of technology. Since so little research has gone into improving that technology, I doubt it is unrealistic to assume it could improve dramatically. But just think about that for a moment... how far will you drive this next weekend for your vacation? How much to do you expect to pay in gas for the round trip? Would you be willing to add extra drive-time while eliminating all fuel-costs for the trip? I can spend $100 a week driving my truck to work and back, possibly a bit more. Now, imagine that number is $0.00 That's my truck payment being made with the money I would normally spend on gas.
Another interesting green concept is Solar Roads. Basically, you embed a series of solar-panels within roads and highways. The heat is transferred into electricity and reintroduced onto the grid. Parking lots, millions of miles of roadways, not to mention the tops of any building; all these urban surfaces could be generating power as a secondary function. You wouldn't need huge solar arrays out in the desert, because you would have them integrated into your towns. But again, the technology is proving too limited to make this brilliant concept viable.
And I suspect the reason the technology isn't there is because it proposes to replace the cash-cow that is modern energy distribution. Being a benefit to humanity just isn't enough reason to innovate anymore. However, finding a way to make money is. That is why I propose the reason we won't see a more robust electric car market; because the innovations being dreamt up which utilize renewable energy aren't lucrative enough.
What I find most interesting is how there seem to be two sides to the political argument essentially using the same reasons to promote two differing ideas about future energy use. One side is excited about renewable energy, seeing it as a way to drop dependence on the limited stock of fossil fuels, while the other looks to finding new sources of fossil fuels closer to home so our dependence on such fuel isn't placed in the hands of other countries. I see it the arguments as extensions of fear, and I think it is important we understand what, ultimately, is causing the fear.
On the former side, the fear is a lack of sustainability. Without adequate resources, the prices go up as supply and demand take their inevitable place in the ongoing paradigm. Looking towards renewable seems to be a ridiculously logical step towards alleviating that fear. The only limitation has been a technology that doesn't satisfy the concept; IE relatively primitive batteries that still have an unfavorable weight/charge ratio, especially in comparison to the perfected fossil-fuel motors. Without a technology that either be comparable to the status-quo or exceed it, the incentive to take a backwards step in productivity just isn't there. What you lose in time and capability just doesn't sufficiently offset the cost of redesigning a working system. So, capitalism wins out. And without a market for the technology, there will be no technological research. Sadly it is like asking for a finished product before paying to have one built. Ask any military contractor if that is a way to achieve innovation and they will have a very succinct answer, I am sure.
On the latter side, the fear is control over a necessary base resource. Basic tenant of capitalism: if you can control the market, then you control the consumer. Many countries produce fossil fuels, and there is huge money in bringing that commodity to market Any hiccups in the production of that fuel is an immediately opening for another supplier to crowbar his way into someone else's customer base. Very dog-eat-dog, where the dogs don't mind taking a chomp out of the hands that buy their fuel as well since it is such a base necessity in this modern world. Electricity is not a luxury anymore, it is a necessity in America. I the summer months we are inundated with reports on how many elderly have died from heat-related injuries due to a lack of electricity, for one reason or another. So, it comes down to buy electricity or die. And since electricity is produced, primarily, by fossil fuels it can be rewritten as "purchase fossil fuels or die". Now THAT is a marketing plan! Why even consider giving up a marketing plan that is so perfectly ingrained in society. In fact, we shouldn't be sending all this money overseas to other suppliers... we should be keeping it for ourselves! Control. There is not fear here of what may happen to the consumer over time, just as there is no compassion by the drug-dealer towards his junkie clientele. There is only the potential rewards of ensuring you are the only drug dealer for this neighborhood.
So, we have a commodity that is vital for sustaining a modern society: energy. And we have two conflicting views on how to address this situation. One side believes it is better to supply society with what it needs efficiently, while the other side believes it is best to capitalize on the situation. Ethics aside, simple human greed beats forward-thinking every day.
But I just read an article about the how the Tesla auto company has installed a few recharge stations in California. The product they have produced is a self-sustaining recharging point that uses solar-power to supply itself with electricity. So... imagine driving around in a electric car and recharging it doesn't cost you a dime. Here's the kicker, though; it will take about a half-hour to recharge your vehicle enough to drive 3 more hours. This is, of course, at the current stage of technology. Since so little research has gone into improving that technology, I doubt it is unrealistic to assume it could improve dramatically. But just think about that for a moment... how far will you drive this next weekend for your vacation? How much to do you expect to pay in gas for the round trip? Would you be willing to add extra drive-time while eliminating all fuel-costs for the trip? I can spend $100 a week driving my truck to work and back, possibly a bit more. Now, imagine that number is $0.00 That's my truck payment being made with the money I would normally spend on gas.
Another interesting green concept is Solar Roads. Basically, you embed a series of solar-panels within roads and highways. The heat is transferred into electricity and reintroduced onto the grid. Parking lots, millions of miles of roadways, not to mention the tops of any building; all these urban surfaces could be generating power as a secondary function. You wouldn't need huge solar arrays out in the desert, because you would have them integrated into your towns. But again, the technology is proving too limited to make this brilliant concept viable.
And I suspect the reason the technology isn't there is because it proposes to replace the cash-cow that is modern energy distribution. Being a benefit to humanity just isn't enough reason to innovate anymore. However, finding a way to make money is. That is why I propose the reason we won't see a more robust electric car market; because the innovations being dreamt up which utilize renewable energy aren't lucrative enough.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Yelling "Fire" in the crowded theater.
I am currently in the middle of a discussion with my girlfriend about the riots going on across the world over a documentary which was posted on Youtube. I am not going to add a link to the video, if you are interested in watching it that is your business. I personally don't care to promote trash. I would rather link to another Uwe Boll film, to be quite honest. Ok... maybe not. But I digress.
My Girlfriend asked me to consider this arguement:
"It is like yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. If your intention is to cause chaos and distress, then you are equally culpable when it occurs."
I considered this line of logic, and found myself going back to the point that free will is still involved. When you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, people are running for their lives due to a perceived threat. It is all fight-or-flight, instincts have taken over, survival trumps all. When you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, and there isn't one, your intention is to provoke chaos. When that chaos occurs the people who ran screaming did so without the benefit of being able to make rational decisions.
What has happened with the movie and the riots isn't the same, because people still have their capacity to make decisions. They have chosen to riot not out of survival or fear, but out of anger. Arguably, it doesn't matter what the medium is, be it political cartoon, a burning of their holy book by a group of redneck Christians, or a distasteful movie, these people chose to riot, chose to kill innocents only guilty of sharing a national origin. That isn't fight-or-flight... that is murder.
Just because we, as individuals, become upset doesn't justify bad behavior. It would be nice to believe that "Suzie MADE me kick the dog", but it is terribly difficult to force someone to exercise your will. Mind control helps, but even deep hypnosis has its limits. No, Suzie can't force upon you decisions against your will. You will always have a choice, the ability to say "Yes" or "No", and that is why the freedom of Speech is so difficult to understand sometimes. Just because a person has burned a flag doesn't mean he is unpatriotic, though it may look that way. The messenger is so separate from the recipient. What I meant to say has very little to do with what you heard me say, so how can I be responsible for what you do next?
Or can I? At which point do we have to turn around to the bullies and say "OK, asshole, what you are doing is wrong"? Freedom of Speech is important. I can say whatever I want about your momma, and as soon as you hit me you are the bad-guy. Is it ok to incite people with the intent to cause chaos, simply because the freedom of Speech is a protected right? At which point do our intentions warrant criminal investigation, even though the violence was the conscious actions of other parties. My girlfriend suggests there is too much gray-area, that if the intent of the cartoonist was to lampoon that is one thing, but if the movie-creator intended to cause global violence that is another.
Even as I fear the idea of inhibiting speech just because it is offensive, she makes the argument that 'offending with the intent to provoke' is wrong; as criminal as the violence it provokes. Interesting argument. It certainly makes a case against bullies. But does it leave the door too open to vague interpretation? Can "consciously provocative and incendiary speech" be legitimately separated from "offensive but unintentionally provocative speech"? If someone thinks "Man, this is gonna piss off Christians" then should the speaker be culpable for having incited the violent reactions of any listeners?
If someone speaks out against war and is shot by a conservative nut-job, who all is at fault; the shooter as well as the incendiary speaker whose comments provoked such a response? If a bully talks about a kid's mom until the kid snaps and slugs the bully in the stomach, who all is culpable? If a man rides into the middle of town bearing a Nazi flag and is hit by a beer bottle from an alleyway, who is in the wrong? What if it is an American Flag? What if it is an American flag on fire? What if it is a Mexican flag on fire?
I gotta tell ya, I am torn. I can see both sides to this all too clear. The Freedom of Speech is such an important right of a free society. But it is ugly and dangerous. It is perhaps the most valuable tool available to a free society; the ability to speak out against an authority that would keep you quiet in its own best interest. But it comes with a price; some people won't want to hear what could potentially be said. Finding the rationale to limit that freedom, based on political advantage, fear, or any possible reason is a slippery slope with dire consequences. I don't think it should be considered readily, lightly, or with an eye to using it to band-aid a bruised foreign ego.
My Girlfriend asked me to consider this arguement:
"It is like yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. If your intention is to cause chaos and distress, then you are equally culpable when it occurs."
I considered this line of logic, and found myself going back to the point that free will is still involved. When you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, people are running for their lives due to a perceived threat. It is all fight-or-flight, instincts have taken over, survival trumps all. When you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, and there isn't one, your intention is to provoke chaos. When that chaos occurs the people who ran screaming did so without the benefit of being able to make rational decisions.
Just because we, as individuals, become upset doesn't justify bad behavior. It would be nice to believe that "Suzie MADE me kick the dog", but it is terribly difficult to force someone to exercise your will. Mind control helps, but even deep hypnosis has its limits. No, Suzie can't force upon you decisions against your will. You will always have a choice, the ability to say "Yes" or "No", and that is why the freedom of Speech is so difficult to understand sometimes. Just because a person has burned a flag doesn't mean he is unpatriotic, though it may look that way. The messenger is so separate from the recipient. What I meant to say has very little to do with what you heard me say, so how can I be responsible for what you do next?
Or can I? At which point do we have to turn around to the bullies and say "OK, asshole, what you are doing is wrong"? Freedom of Speech is important. I can say whatever I want about your momma, and as soon as you hit me you are the bad-guy. Is it ok to incite people with the intent to cause chaos, simply because the freedom of Speech is a protected right? At which point do our intentions warrant criminal investigation, even though the violence was the conscious actions of other parties. My girlfriend suggests there is too much gray-area, that if the intent of the cartoonist was to lampoon that is one thing, but if the movie-creator intended to cause global violence that is another.
Even as I fear the idea of inhibiting speech just because it is offensive, she makes the argument that 'offending with the intent to provoke' is wrong; as criminal as the violence it provokes. Interesting argument. It certainly makes a case against bullies. But does it leave the door too open to vague interpretation? Can "consciously provocative and incendiary speech" be legitimately separated from "offensive but unintentionally provocative speech"? If someone thinks "Man, this is gonna piss off Christians" then should the speaker be culpable for having incited the violent reactions of any listeners?
If someone speaks out against war and is shot by a conservative nut-job, who all is at fault; the shooter as well as the incendiary speaker whose comments provoked such a response? If a bully talks about a kid's mom until the kid snaps and slugs the bully in the stomach, who all is culpable? If a man rides into the middle of town bearing a Nazi flag and is hit by a beer bottle from an alleyway, who is in the wrong? What if it is an American Flag? What if it is an American flag on fire? What if it is a Mexican flag on fire?
I gotta tell ya, I am torn. I can see both sides to this all too clear. The Freedom of Speech is such an important right of a free society. But it is ugly and dangerous. It is perhaps the most valuable tool available to a free society; the ability to speak out against an authority that would keep you quiet in its own best interest. But it comes with a price; some people won't want to hear what could potentially be said. Finding the rationale to limit that freedom, based on political advantage, fear, or any possible reason is a slippery slope with dire consequences. I don't think it should be considered readily, lightly, or with an eye to using it to band-aid a bruised foreign ego.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
The irreplacable Fred Rogers
I'm sorry, but as I was perusing Youtube, looking at various clips of the late Fred Rogers, I came across his Lifetime Achievement Award from 1997. I have to share it with you, but first I want to preface it with a story...
When I first moved to Texas and got my first job, I was tasked with going to Dallas for a summer and work as a part of my training with a cable installation company. That isn't important to the story, but it lets you know why I was there listing to a morning show hosted a couple of 30-something DJs from some pop-music radio station while traveling from job to job. I was lucky enough to hear a phone interview the two DJs had with Fred Rogers. Now, these two DJs, a man and a woman, were saucy and snarky about most pop-culture subjects popular in the moment, and they were mischievous and irreverent. That was their schtick. But it only took a few words form Mr. Rogers for them to suddenly become children again, awestruck and utterly captivated by this gentle, sincere man. I don't remember his words myself, but I will never forget his tone. He was soft, and gentle, and integrity personified. He was amazing. And the two DJs were completely under his spell. The woman DJ could hardly speak, she seemed so awestruck. And the man tried to bluff and bluster, but in the end Mr. Roger's kind demeanor was overpowering, and there was, could only be, reverence and respect for this brilliant man.
So here is Fred Roger's acceptance speech.
Even in his gratitude, in a moment when he is being honored for his life's work, when he has the stage to say anything about his life, he takes the community of self-possessed actors by the hand, and leads them all, like the children they have suddenly become, in taking a moment to thank the people in their lives who have given them support. He teaches us, in what could otherwise be a selfish moment, to be selfless. And in doing so Fred Rogers shows us what gratitude is truly all about.
What a truly amazing man.
When I first moved to Texas and got my first job, I was tasked with going to Dallas for a summer and work as a part of my training with a cable installation company. That isn't important to the story, but it lets you know why I was there listing to a morning show hosted a couple of 30-something DJs from some pop-music radio station while traveling from job to job. I was lucky enough to hear a phone interview the two DJs had with Fred Rogers. Now, these two DJs, a man and a woman, were saucy and snarky about most pop-culture subjects popular in the moment, and they were mischievous and irreverent. That was their schtick. But it only took a few words form Mr. Rogers for them to suddenly become children again, awestruck and utterly captivated by this gentle, sincere man. I don't remember his words myself, but I will never forget his tone. He was soft, and gentle, and integrity personified. He was amazing. And the two DJs were completely under his spell. The woman DJ could hardly speak, she seemed so awestruck. And the man tried to bluff and bluster, but in the end Mr. Roger's kind demeanor was overpowering, and there was, could only be, reverence and respect for this brilliant man.
So here is Fred Roger's acceptance speech.
Even in his gratitude, in a moment when he is being honored for his life's work, when he has the stage to say anything about his life, he takes the community of self-possessed actors by the hand, and leads them all, like the children they have suddenly become, in taking a moment to thank the people in their lives who have given them support. He teaches us, in what could otherwise be a selfish moment, to be selfless. And in doing so Fred Rogers shows us what gratitude is truly all about.
What a truly amazing man.
An artist's eyes
Every once in a while I am fortunate enough to come across a little piece of magic in my internet travels. I want to share a could pieces of that magic with you today.
I am not sure if you are familiar with the two genius artists portrayed in the two clips I am about to off you, but if you are then you will likely enjoy this.
The first is a clip featuring the late Mr. Rogers.
The second is a clip featuring the late Bob Ross.
Now, I may be a sentimental goof, but I remember watching these men, these wonderful artists, when I was a kid. I was drawn to PBS as a child, like a moth to flame. Sesame Street, Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, The Joy of Painting with Bob Ross, Electric Company, and so many others. And what I brought away from this brilliant programming was an invaluable education. Only now, so much later in my life, can I look back and truly understand what I was being taught. I was taught to live life, to love learning, and to be kind to people I meet. I was being taught to look at the world as through an artist's eyes, where everything is a joy to behold, and a wonderful place to let my imagination run wild. These brilliant men offered me their time and guidance in a scary world, reminding me to be kind, be creative, and to respect and love the world around me and the people in it. How awesome is that?!
I am not sure if you are familiar with the two genius artists portrayed in the two clips I am about to off you, but if you are then you will likely enjoy this.
The first is a clip featuring the late Mr. Rogers.
The second is a clip featuring the late Bob Ross.
Now, I may be a sentimental goof, but I remember watching these men, these wonderful artists, when I was a kid. I was drawn to PBS as a child, like a moth to flame. Sesame Street, Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, The Joy of Painting with Bob Ross, Electric Company, and so many others. And what I brought away from this brilliant programming was an invaluable education. Only now, so much later in my life, can I look back and truly understand what I was being taught. I was taught to live life, to love learning, and to be kind to people I meet. I was being taught to look at the world as through an artist's eyes, where everything is a joy to behold, and a wonderful place to let my imagination run wild. These brilliant men offered me their time and guidance in a scary world, reminding me to be kind, be creative, and to respect and love the world around me and the people in it. How awesome is that?!
Friday, July 6, 2012
Rock out with your Hawk out.
Just had to offer this little tidbit of fun, because it made me laugh my ass off.
Enjoy.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Joy
Joy.
How do you define it? What does it look like? Better... how does one capture it?
This video, and the others like it, always give me joy, and I think I know why. It is a vision of joy, and all it required was a sincere connection between people, a love of self expression and selfless offering to the world an image of that joy. Its passion and fearlessness, freedom and love.
And it is so wonderfully captured by this video series. What a wonderful gift to offer the world: joy in its purest form.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Movie Review: The Union: The Business Behind Getting High
Just finished watching this documentary, and I am finding myself in a very reflective mood. Marijuana is a hot-topic, with controversy growing all around it like plants in a "Grow Op" (a term used in the movie to denote people who grow marijuana in their homes, typically in a basement or similar, for the purpose of selling as a cash-crop.) Ask anyone and you get a wide range of opinions concerning its danger, its legality, it medical potential, its industrial potential, and on and on. This documentary does a wonderful job of looking into much of those topics. And it does so in a straightforward, easy to watch method.
The host, Adam Scorgie, walks us through a fairly typical documentary format, taking time to address many of the points of controversy that are so fluid surrounding marijuana. He takes us to his hometown in British Columbia, where we get to visit the home of a grower; his "Grow Op". He takes on a trip to Grow Op that had been raided by police months before, but is now a forgotten spot on the side of a hill; 20 buried railroad cars turned into a huge underground green-house. We walk down city streets while he feeds us numbers and statistics. Then we get to hear from experts and people celebrities opposed or adversely affected by anti-marijuana laws. It isn't spectacular in its format, it doesn't reinvent the wheel. It is light and easy to watch. It offers facts, leads us to conclusions, challenges the status-quo, and feeds us exactly what it wants us to digest. And it does all this cleanly and with a good amount of craftsmanship.
What else can I say about it? Not much. It doesn't break down any doors or light up the screen with controversy. Even when it offers slices of the conservative position (marijuana is bad) it doesn't do it with much gusto. In fact, it is quite kind in how it handles the opposing side. Early on in the study it asks a couple of ex-growers what they thought about legalizing Marijuana, and they say without hesitation "Why would we want to give up that money?" And thus is the whole point of the film; the acknowledgment that money is the motivator behind any action concerning Marijuana. With that in place, nobody is truly evil in this story, just part of "The Union"; part of the vast system of people who profit in one way or another from the drug-trade, particularly Pot.
I actually found this message to be a bit refreshing. It is understated, but present in this film. Everyone believes it is ludicrous that Pot is illegal, but there is so much money involved. It doesn't produce crime by producing violent people, but instead by simply being criminal to possess, which is good for the whole criminal system, from lawyers to privatized prisons. It gets people elected to office, and keeps a long of chain of private entrepreneurs willing to side-step the law working hard for a plant which can be grown anywhere and yet holds a value greater than gold bullion. It is a marvel of cultural manipulation and indoctrination.
I found this film to be very similar to "Why We Fight", the documentary about the Industrial War Complex. It is understated, one-sided, and it doesn't shake the foundations of conventional thought so much as remind us not to bury our heads under the covers.
It doesn't try to quantify its facts, and the people interviewed aren't experts in their field of pertinent study. Nobody is interviewed who might provide an opposing view, so no confrontations exist to distract us away from its simply logic: Marijuana isn't harmful, but keeping it illegal is. And that is somewhat sad. I always like a good dose of opposing argument in my righteous indignation. But I don't fault the movie for sticking to one side of the issue so completely; many documentaries do that. You can't pick up a Michael Moore movie without coming away feeling like you should have been offered a plastic splatter-sheet when you entered the theater. But I guess the thought is that we are inundated with one side of the argument anyway, so why not offer a bit of clarity to the propaganda?
And this movie does so very well. It is kind and soft-spoken, much like a person smoking marijuana. And that is refreshing in a documentary.
The host, Adam Scorgie, walks us through a fairly typical documentary format, taking time to address many of the points of controversy that are so fluid surrounding marijuana. He takes us to his hometown in British Columbia, where we get to visit the home of a grower; his "Grow Op". He takes on a trip to Grow Op that had been raided by police months before, but is now a forgotten spot on the side of a hill; 20 buried railroad cars turned into a huge underground green-house. We walk down city streets while he feeds us numbers and statistics. Then we get to hear from experts and people celebrities opposed or adversely affected by anti-marijuana laws. It isn't spectacular in its format, it doesn't reinvent the wheel. It is light and easy to watch. It offers facts, leads us to conclusions, challenges the status-quo, and feeds us exactly what it wants us to digest. And it does all this cleanly and with a good amount of craftsmanship.
What else can I say about it? Not much. It doesn't break down any doors or light up the screen with controversy. Even when it offers slices of the conservative position (marijuana is bad) it doesn't do it with much gusto. In fact, it is quite kind in how it handles the opposing side. Early on in the study it asks a couple of ex-growers what they thought about legalizing Marijuana, and they say without hesitation "Why would we want to give up that money?" And thus is the whole point of the film; the acknowledgment that money is the motivator behind any action concerning Marijuana. With that in place, nobody is truly evil in this story, just part of "The Union"; part of the vast system of people who profit in one way or another from the drug-trade, particularly Pot.
I actually found this message to be a bit refreshing. It is understated, but present in this film. Everyone believes it is ludicrous that Pot is illegal, but there is so much money involved. It doesn't produce crime by producing violent people, but instead by simply being criminal to possess, which is good for the whole criminal system, from lawyers to privatized prisons. It gets people elected to office, and keeps a long of chain of private entrepreneurs willing to side-step the law working hard for a plant which can be grown anywhere and yet holds a value greater than gold bullion. It is a marvel of cultural manipulation and indoctrination.
I found this film to be very similar to "Why We Fight", the documentary about the Industrial War Complex. It is understated, one-sided, and it doesn't shake the foundations of conventional thought so much as remind us not to bury our heads under the covers.
It doesn't try to quantify its facts, and the people interviewed aren't experts in their field of pertinent study. Nobody is interviewed who might provide an opposing view, so no confrontations exist to distract us away from its simply logic: Marijuana isn't harmful, but keeping it illegal is. And that is somewhat sad. I always like a good dose of opposing argument in my righteous indignation. But I don't fault the movie for sticking to one side of the issue so completely; many documentaries do that. You can't pick up a Michael Moore movie without coming away feeling like you should have been offered a plastic splatter-sheet when you entered the theater. But I guess the thought is that we are inundated with one side of the argument anyway, so why not offer a bit of clarity to the propaganda?
And this movie does so very well. It is kind and soft-spoken, much like a person smoking marijuana. And that is refreshing in a documentary.
Marijuana Documentary
I am currently watching a documentary on Marijuana. It has been freely offered for viewing on Youtube, and I urge everyone to watch it. Here's a link:
The Union: The Business Behind Getting High
The Union: The Business Behind Getting High
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)