31 Jan, 2010 | by
Topics: Economy, Politics

democratsrepublicans1

I tend to shy away from politically focused posts as the feedback is generally overly intense, sometimes irrational and usually futile.  It’s almost as bad as trying to discuss the perennially hot topic of religion.  The discussion always begins amicably enough, but it inevitably seems to devolve into senseless argument.  I think Oscar Wilde said it best:  “Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing”. 

After watching the recent State of the Union address (embedded below; please watch it if you have not…It’s worth it) I felt compelled to share a few thoughts, given that much of the  focus of the speech is centered on the economy.  A harsh reality is that politics and business are firmly joined at the hip, whether you want to believe that or not.  A clear example of this would be the special bond between corporate entities and career politicians.  How many times have you heard of “gray-area” reciprocities that have transpired over the past few decades alone?  You know what I mean – transactions that just didn’t seem to pass the common sense test.  Remember the cozy relationship between Halliburton and former Vice President Dick Cheney?  Wiki “Political scandals of the United States,” and you’ll get a flavor of just how extensive the list is. 

I know, I know … you’re probably thinking I’m heading down the path of “all politicians are criminals” stereotype.  That’s really not my intention here, so please bear with me.  We all know that political malfeasance is much more commonplace then it should be.  When was the last time you had that following thought running through your head after news of a scandal broke:  “Wow, I can’t believe he or she would do something like that”?  It’s almost expected these days.  The only questions are:  “How egregious is the act?” and “Will the public ultimately accept the indiscretion for what it was?”  It’s that simple; however, variables that dictate the public’s appetite for forgiveness is not.  Blagojevich = Bad, Clinton = Not so bad or even good.  Go figure. continue reading »

10 Jan, 2010 | by

 3d-glasses

By now, you probably know a friend or a friend of a friend who has seen the blockbuster movie “Avatar,” a film that undoubtedly touts the creative genius of James Cameron, with a plot that seems to be universally appreciated, visually stunning cinematography and cutting-edge 3D technology that puts the proverbial cherry on top. Anecdotally, it just seems that moviegoers are actually excited about going to theaters again, a trend of which Hollywood is keenly aware.

As the “Avatar”-sparked 3D revolution continues to build momentum, I find myself asking a profoundly simple question: Is it sustainable? 3D has been around for a very long time. Yes, the technology itself has evolved in tremendous ways, but the original concept goes back over fifty years, not to mention there have been 3D resurgences in both the 50s and 80s. However, the spikes in usage during those periods were seen as gimmicks that quickly lost popularity.

In the January 6, 2010 Yahoo News article “Blockbuster ‘Avatar’ to accelerate 3D revolution”, the author states that “[a]ccording to organizers of a recent 3D film festival in Belgium, more than 150 3D films are currently in various stages of production. Among them is the long-awaited movie adaptation of comic-book hero ‘Tintin,’ directed by Oscar-winner Steven Spielberg and tentatively scheduled for release in 2011.”
It’s clear that Hollywood sees the current 3D revolution as an opportunity to accentuate the moviegoer experience and glean profits in the process. But I for one feel that the 3D zeitgeist will pass and ultimately succumb to one irrefutable principle: Technology without substance or meaningful content is destined for failure.
continue reading »