furiousBlog

I've just finished watching Garden State for the second time. The first time I saw it, I was completely bored. It seemed like it was just another in a seemingly endless stream of movies that were really slow, had little to no plot, and didn't really have much of a purpose. The others that spring to mind are About Schmidt and Lost in Translation (there's a couple more, but I can never seem to remember them). About Schmidt was so bad that I could only make it through the first hour and a half; I never even saw Kathy Bates. I thought Lost in Translation and Garden State were considerably more watchable.

So, due to continued rave reviews from a couple friends, I rewatched Garden State. I want to like it. I like the actors. I like deep movies. I liked the commercials for it. But, it still does nothing for me. There were some funny parts, some sad parts, a lot of awkward parts, a bit with a dog...

Why is it good? Why do you like it? Is it because it's funny? Sad? Uplifting? Does it reaffirm your faith in humanity? Does it make you feel normal, that everyone's struggling through the same issues? How are you better for having watched it? Is it a feel-good movie, or a deep movie? Or, is it just a good movie, nothing more, nothing less?

Is there more to it that I'm just missing? Is it because there isn't more to it? Am I shallow for not liking it, or are you for the opposite?

(These aren't hypotheticals. Please post your thoughts in the comments.)

I was just listening to the Kojo Naambdi show on WAMU (local NPR affiliate station) during my lunch break, when I was amused by a somewhat misguided analogy. One segment of the show was about a space probe that NASA launched to crash into a comet. The part of the spacecraft that will actually impact the comet was referred to as the 'bullet.'

In trying to put the comet and bullet into perspective, to assuage fears that this will somehow split the comet in two or redirect its orbit so that it could hit the Earth, Kojo's expert guest said that there was no danger, and that it was basically, and I quote, "a David and Goliath type of thing."

In my recollection, the bullet (rock) in David and Goliath had quite an effect on that story's comet (Goliath's head). So, according to Kojo's guest, the end is nigh.

To be fair, he also used the analogy that is the title of this post earlier in the conversation.

So, I'm sure every American blogger who has any political opinions are blogging (or will soon) about the winner of the 'Greatest American' show.

In case you didn't get sucked into it (which I was able to do for the most part, but I did watch the last episode), it was basically a poll where you could vote for the greatest American who ever lived. As with all list shows, it was rediculous and only served to highlight the ignorance of those voting.

Here is the final 5, in order:

5: Benjamin Franklin
4. George Washington
3. Martin Luther King, Jr.
2. Abraham Lincoln
1. Ronald Reagan

One of these things is not like the other. I mean, come on! Reagan?!?! Sure, he was president, and a lot of people really liked him, and maybe he even did a lot of stuff, but the greatest American of all time?!?! Reagonomics is more important than leading the colonies to victory in the Revolutionary War and establishing innumerable practices, policies, precendents and programs that are still in effect over 200 years later? Iran Contra was more important than freeing the slaves? 'Tear down that wall' is more important than 'I have a Dream'?

Any of the other top 4 (or a few others -- Jefferson, Hamilton, probably a couple others) would've been fine with me for the top spot. Reagan in the top 10 is imcomprehensible, but number 1? Wow.

As evidence that the entire top 100 is nothing short of absurd, here are a few of the highlights (I can't seem to find a list in order):

• Ellen Degeneres


• Brett Favre


• Dr. Phil (if he even beat Ellen and Brett, it's an offense to common sense -- his major accomplishment is listed as a 'no-nonsense talk show host'. it's not even an accomplishment!)


• A bunch of actors: Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Mel Gibson, etc.


• Rush Limbaugh


• Madonna


• Oprah Winfrey (#8!!!!!)


• George W. Bush (#6 -- obviously, I'd be betraying my bias here if I didn't also mention that I don't think Clinton should've been on the list either. He was #7).

I think part of the problem with Reagan, or any of the more recent people on the list, is that there hasn't been enough time to see if their accomplishments will actually mean anything in the long run. How will Dr. Phil be viewed in 50 years? In 50 years, will anyone remember Brett Favre outside of football buffs? How about in 200 years? Will anyone remember whatever it is that Ellen Degeneres is listed for? Will the war in Iraq be viewed in hindsight as the moment when America ceased to be America, or will it be viewed as the moment that America turned the world around? I'm pretty sure that in a hundred years, we'll still be talking about the contributions of Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, and King.

At least with the modern presidents and such on the list, there's a chance that their accomplishments will be the cause for great things, but Oprah?

As with any internet poll, or other completely self-selecting voting group, this list is less than useless. It does absolutely nothing to actually define greatness, or what makes a great American. Mostly, it just proves that Americans don't understand or care about history, and that the Greatest American was no more important than VH1's '100 Greatest Kid Stars.' Heck, I'd even bet that in 50 years, more people remember Gary Coleman that Dr. Phil.

I heard about this on NPR this morning but couldn't find the story on their site. So, here's the story on the Washington Post site:

Pizza Shop Robber Leaves Job Application

Authorities said Martinez ordered a pizza and started filling out the application before displaying a gun and demanding money. The clerk handed over $200.

Then, he left with the money, but forgot to pick up the application he had filled out with his real name and address. The WP story says they found him from his license plate, but the NPR story said they found him from the application.

I was going to say that I found this pretty funny blog entry referring to another blog entry, but then I reread it and only a few of the trends were funny. Both lists are somewhat interesting, although the second list is correct in mocking several of the trends in the first. The funniest line, and the driving force behind me writing this is from the second (mocking) list:

7) Managers of Java developers will continue to switch to simpler technologies like outsourcing to India.

Here's the link:
Ten Emerging 2005 Software Trends