The Mind of Zalech

Bono and the Boys Do it Again!

2009-03-08T11:35:00.000-05:00

First of all, a brief announcement: I will no longer be strictly following the "one post a week" format that I have been using for this blog since I started. I will instead post basically whenever I have time and/or have something that I want to post about. That means you'll need to check the blog more often if you want to see the most recent post(s), which will hopefully mean a few more readers. The weekly poll and top 5 will continue as usual, and I will probably add some more features like them to "spice up" the blog a bit. As usual, I ask you to help me advertise and please keep coming back and reading!! Your support is greatly appreciated!

Now that that's out of the way, let's get to the good stuff. On March 3rd, U2's newest album, No Line On The Horizon, was released to rave reviews from critics. My review will obviously be no different, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents about it since U2 is my favorite band.

Overall, this album is outstanding. U2 breaks new ground while still retaining that distinctive U2 sound. The album reminds me a lot of their 1991 album Achtung Baby because of some of the influences heard on it, especially from electronic music. Throughout the album the Edge really tests the limits of his sound, turning up the "fuzzy" on some songs while sticking with his distinctive ringing tones on others. Bassist Adam Clayton is featured prominently on the album, and drummer Larry Mullen also puts on a solid performance. As for front man extraordinaire Bono, his falsettos aren't what they used to be, but he still pulls it off fairly well and puts ona good performance on jsut about every song. Here is a track by track review of the album, followed by my overall score on a 5-star scale:

"No Line On The Horizon" - A blazing yet somehow mellow rocker that opens the album well

"Magnificent" - Has a very stong dance-influenced beat. Title of the track is vrey appropriate.

"Moment of Surrender" - A slow song that has an organ as backing, giving it a gospel-type feel. The longest song on the album at 7:24.

"Unknown Caller" - Another slower one with more organ at the end. You may think that sounds a bit repetitive, but it really works, especially behind Edge's solo.

"I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight" - This song might be my favorite on the album. Has a catchy melody and is a very traditional U2 song with a little bit of the new sound thrown in. This one will make a great single release.

"Get On Your Boots" - The lead single. A very "Vertigo"-esque rocker with what may be ADam Clayton's best bass line ever and a bit of a hip-hop style bridge/interlude thing. Great song.

"Stand Up Comedy" - A funky song with a bit of a Led Zeppelin type riff to it. Very catchy beat.

"FEZ - Being Born" - A very odd song because of the trippy intro. The rest of it is good but sounds a little too similar to "No Line..."

"White As Snow" - The mellowest song on the album I think. The melody is based on the hymn "O Come O Come Emmanuel".

"Breathe" - Another blazing rocker, but this time in 3. One of my favorites on the album.

"Cedars of Lebanon" - Another mellow one with Larry Mullen doing a military beat quietly in the background. Odd, but it works.

My overall score: 4.75/5 stars (the .25 being taken off only because I thought the song order was odd...other than that, pretty much flawless)

Look to the mountains,

Zalech

Who ever said Taxes were Fair?

2009-03-01T10:30:00.002-06:00

So this weeks column is a bit of an informative one. With the economic crisis still wreaking havoc across the country despite the passing of the TARP bill (surprise surprise), I thought it would be appropriate to discuss a proposal that has been being discussed in congress for years without much action being taken. I am referring to the Fair Tax Proposal, a bill that would eliminate all forms of income tax and replace it with a national consumption tax (which you might see more often referred to as a sales tax).

Now, this is not a bill to be taken lightly. It would involve some HUGE changes in so many places in our country, but I can guarantee that almost all of these changes would be for the better. The first thing that it would probably lead to would be the repealing of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads as follows: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Basically, this means that the IRS would be abolished, done away with, gone, eliminated, vaporized...well, you get the picture. This would mean a simpler tax system overall, which is something that has been desperately needed in this country for some time.

But let's look at what this would mean for you, the American tax payer. Basically, it would mean that when you get your paycheck from wherever you work, you would receive all of it. The government would not take a cent of it. Instead, you would pay taxes whenever you buy consumer goods at your local Walgreen's, Shopko, Best Buy, or wherever else you shop. Just like in some states, an automatic sales tax would be tacked on to the bill for whatever you buy. This basically means that, in a way, you can CHOOSE how much you pay in taxes. Now, if you're mad because you don't want the price of all the crap you love to buy to go up, then I say this to you: buy less crap. It's that simple. Besides, you will be bringing in more money anyway, so you will be able to afford more crap anyway. The difference is that you choose how much of your money goes to tax dollars.

That's about as far into detail on this proposal that I will go, as it would take far too long to outline the whole thing. If you want more information on this proposal, or if you're skeptical about this proposal for whatever reason, I would HIGHLY recommend that you check out this document...it compares our current tax system with the Fair Tax Proposal in numerous aspects, and I think it very clearly shows that the Fair Tax would be far superior:

http://www.pafairtax.org/resrcs/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf

That's it for this week....see ya! And please keep helping me to advertise! Tell your friends, family, pets, and whoever the heck else you want!

Look to the mountains,

Zalech

Who is this Oscar guy, Anyway?

2009-02-22T08:20:00.000-06:00

Well folks, this week because I have limited time I must sort of discuss a similar topic to last week. Last week I did a review of the Grammys....and this week, I'm going to gaze into my crystal ball and make my predictions for the big awards on Oscar night. Now, you can probably guessed that I'm more than a little ticked off about The Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan getting snubbed for best picture and best director nominations, respectively, but we've gone over that already, so lets focus on what we have. Here are the nominees in the major categories and my predictions....the names that are in bold are the ones that I predict to win.

Best Picture:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

Best Director:
David Fincher - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Ron Howard - Frost/Nixon
Gus Van Sant - Milk
Stephen Daldry - The Reader
Danny Boyle - Slumdog Millionaire

Best Leading Actor:
Brad Pitt - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frank Langella - Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn - Milk
Richard Jenkins - The Visitor
Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler

Best Leading Actress:
Angelina Jolie - Changeling
Meryl Streep - Doubt
Melissa Leo - Frozen River
Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married
Kate Winslet - The Reader

Best Supporting Actor:
Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt
Josh Brolin - Milk
Michael Shannon - Revolutionary Road
Robert Downey Jr. - Tropic Thunder

Best Supporting Actress:
Taraji P. Henson - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Amy Adams - Doubt
Viola Davis - Doubt
Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Marisa Tomei - The Wrester

Look to the mountains,

Zalech

Some Grammy Quick Hits

2009-02-15T10:26:00.004-06:00

For those of you who weren't aware, last week was the 51st annual Grammy Awards. If you were not aware of that, you need not worry, as you are not alone since the Grammys usually get a collective "meh" from the media and much of the public these days (with the exception of the red carpet crap of course). So, to fill you in, I will simply provide some quick highlights, with some sarcastic commentary thrown in of course, on this years ceremony. Here we go:

Performances:
-U2 opened the show with a performance of their new single, "Get On Your Boots" off of their upcoming album No Line On The Horizon. They seemed to be in form as usual. Of course I might be a little biased seeing as they are my favorite band, butI think that the rockin' little number was a good way to open the show.

-Kid Rock played a medley of songs from his newest album. The songs were "Amen", the mega-summer hit "All Summer Long", and "Rock N Roll Jesus". An entertaining performance, but nothing spectacular.

-Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus did an acoustic duet of a song entitled "Fifteen". Coincidentally, that is also the number of songs you can hear within one hour on popular radio that sound that generic. Yawn.

-One of the most interesting performances of the evening was the Stevie Wonder and the Jnas Brothers. Stevie was great as always, but the "Jo Bros" looked lost. They obviously are not familiar with Stevie Wonder's music, which in my mind merits banshment from the music industry. Thank goodness Stevie was there to save the performance.

-I'm not a big fan of her music, but I must say that Katy Perry really brought the house down with her performance of "I Kissed A Girl". The crowd just ate it up.....especially the fruit shaped stage props (get it?).

-Ok, I'm sorry, but Dave Grohl drumming to a Beatles song just doesn't work. He and Paul McCartney played "I Saw Her Standing There", and him throwing his hair around and such was pure comedy gold.

-Neil Diamond played "Sweet Caroline". This provided for a very nice three minute nap.

-One of my favorite preformances was a rendition of the late Bo Diddley's "Bo Diddley" by blues legends BB King and Buddy Guy.....oh yeah, John Mayer and Keith Urban helped out too. It's amazing how unimportant they seemed next to King and Guy. All joking aside, this was really friggin cool.

Awards:
-Song of The Year: "Viva la Vida" - Coldplay. I agree with this choice given the other nominees. "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock would have been my first choice, but it wasn;t even nominated, so what do I know.

-Record of the Year: "Please Read The Letter" - Robert Plant and Alison Krauss. I don't understand this team-up at all, but it must be pretty good. Whatever I guess.

-Best New Artist: Adele. Who in the blue blazes is that? I have no friggin clue. At least the Jonas Brothers lost.

-Album of the Year: Raising Sand - Robert Plant and Alison Krauss. Ok Robert Plant, you've had your fun. NOW GET YOUR BUTT BACK WITH LED ZEPPELIN AND DO A REUNION TOUR ALREADY!!!!!

Well, that's all for this week. See you next time.

Look to the mountains,

Zalech

Stimulus? We don't need no stinkin' stimulus.

2009-02-08T10:12:00.001-06:00

Well folks, it looks like it is time for Zalech to play some hardball this week. Yep, it's time for me to talk some politics. Since politics is so divisive these days, I would again remind you all to keep any comments civilized and respectful.

The topic at hand today is this massive "economic stimulus plan" that President Obama and congressional Democrats have been pushing for since day one in office. The bill, whose official name is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, has already been passed in the House of Representatives and is currently percolating in the Senate. The bill proposes roughly $275 billion in tax cuts and$550 billion in domestic spending, which means that the bill's price tag comes in at around $825 billion.

Let me first address the tax cut part of this bill. I like that the Democrats had enough brains to include some tax cuts in the bill. Tax cuts are the number one thing that the government can and should do during an economic downturn. People obviously have less money right now than they would normally, and a cut on the tax on their income would help them keep more of what they earn. Now, here's the problem with this specific tax cut: it needs to go farther than that. These tax cuts do almost nothing to help the business that are employing (or used to employ) these taxpayers. Businesses are cutting jobs left and right to save money, and a tax cut for these businesses would give them more ability and incentive not only to keep the jobs that currently exist, but also to create some new ones as well. There is, however, no indication that this bill will include any kind of tax cuts for businesses, so even if individuals get significant income tax cuts, they may not have an income to worry about in the first place because businesses will still need to cut jobs. So really, these tax cuts help only a tiny bit. They don't really address the bigger problem, which (as we will see later) is the real issue with this bill.

Now let's talk about the elephant in the room here: the spending part of the bill. Hoo boy. $550 billion dollars is a lot of dough, folks. Should we really spend that much? And furthermore, can we afford it? The answer to these questions are no and no, respectively. I'm just going to lay it all out right here: this proposed spending is unnecessary, idiotic and inexcusably irresponsible. The first and foremost reason for this is the fact that our current national debt stands at over $10 trillion. That's a one with 13 zeros behind it, folks. That's nothing to take lightly. So we have this obnxiously huge national debt already....and we want to add significantly more spending to that? Isn't this what got us in trouble in the first place? Where is the fiscal responsibility? We are never going to lower that debt unless we learn to control our spending and make some massive cuts in that spending as well, and this is not helping. Furthermore, I fail to see how some of the expenditures in this bill will help people in this crisis. $32 billion for an electric smart grid? $20 billion for health information technologies? $6 billion for higher education modernization (whatever that means)? Do I hear some pigs oinking here? How does this help the economy, and furthermore the American people? The answer is that it doesn't, because somewhere along the line we will have to pay for all of this....in tax increases. Oh, but it won't be just this generation paying for it, oh no. This is a burden that we are placing on the generations to come, and because of that this vicious cycle will just continue.

My main message here is that if the government wants to really help the economy recover, they just need to cut taxes and then keep their noses out of it. This is a free market economy. It's built so that if we have a downturn, we can learn from our mistakes and work through it to figure out how to turn things around....without government intervention. President Obama and the Democrats who currently control Congress should be looking at ways that the government can fix its own problems, like the debt, in responsible ways that won't adversely affect the American people. There is currently a counter-proposal in the House of Representatives, introduced by Republican Representative Tom Price of Georgia, that would institute tax cuts similar to what I have said I would favor and doesn't have any of the frivolous spending of the current bill. You can read about it here. So overall I believe that when it comes to the economy the less government, the better. I leave you with this quote from one of my all-time favorite politicians, former 5-term Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater: "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away."

Look to the Mountains,

Zalech

Alan Freed Wouldn't Be Happy

2009-02-01T11:02:00.003-06:00

One of the things that I look forward to hearing every year is who will be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame every year. This year's inductees were announced recently, and fist of all let me extend a warm congratulations to all of them. There are some big names going in this year; the artists who will be inducted as performers on April 4th are Jeff Beck, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Metallica, Bobby Womack, and Run-DMC.

Wait a second....Run-DMC? A rap group? Seriously? Whats up with that?

Let's look at this for a second. Jeff Beck is one of the all-time great rock guitarists, so it makes sense that he's in. Little Anthony and the Imperials is one of the all-time great doo-wop groups, which was a huge part of early Rock and Roll, so that makes sense. Metallica is one of the most notable and famous performers of heavy metal, a derivative form of Rock and Roll, so they pass easily. Bobby Womack is a somewhat obscure but influential singer/songwriter from the 60s and 70s who dabbled in rock, soul, funk, country, and everything in between, so he's worthy (if barely). But Run-DMC? It's called the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not the "Popular Music Hall of Fame"....and what in the world does this rap group have to do with rock and roll?

Now, this is actually the second time this has happened. In 2006, rap group Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five were inducted, becoming the first rap group to recieve this honor and making many rock aficionados (and me) very dissapointed in the Hall of Fame, especially since they got the nod over the Dave Clark Five that year. But I digress. My point is this: rap groups have no business coming anywhere close to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Rap has nothing to do with rock. Rap evolved all on it's own in the 70s and 80s, and it did not come from any derivative of Rock and Roll. Now, that's not to say that Rap isn't a genre that deserves respect. I would have no problem with a Rap Hall of Fame being opened up somewhere. But rap has no place in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.l

There is one tiny thing I must acknowledge about Run-DMC: they did collaborate for ONE SONG with a Rock group. I am of course referring to their version of Aerosmith's "Walk This Way", which may be their most famous song. In any case, that song is still decidedly a rap song, so even if that song is the Hall of Fame's basis for induction, they still have no excuse. How voters can induct candidates that have absolutely nothing to do with rock (and in their first year of eligibilty no less) when influential artists such as Deep Purple, KISS, Jan and Dean, Genesis, Styx, Rush and many more continue to get snubbed every year. It really doesn't make sense at all, and if the Hall of Fame voters don't get their act together soon, the Hall of Fame will no longer be a shrine of Rock and Roll greatness, but rather a place where a bunch of no-brain voters try to please everybody and not seem stuffy. Well, let me say this: there's a fine line between seeming stuffy and sticking to principles. It's called the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for a reason. Let's hope that Hall of Fame voters will remember that from now on.

Look to the mountains (and rock on!)

Zalech

Super Bowl XLIII: An Analysis

2009-01-25T08:45:00.000-06:00

Well, it seems that this weekend is what I like to call "the weekend that the NFL forgot", the weekend between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl. For me, that means that it's time to break down the upcoming 43rd Super Bowl and pick who I think will be victorious. This year's Super Bowl presents a very intriguing match up between the perennial powerhouse Pittsburgh Steelers and the usually futile Arizona Cardinals. This is a classic David vs. Goliath match up, meaning that it should make for an interesting game. Let's start by comparing the teams' regular season statistics, shall we?
Arizona Cardinals
Offense:
Total Offense (YPG): 365.8
Points Scored Per Game: 26.7
Passing (YPG): 292.1
Rushing (YPG): 73.6

Defense:
Total Defense (YPG): 331.5
Points Allowed Per Game: 26.6
Passing (YPG): 221.2
Rushing (YPG): 110.2

Pittsburgh Steelers
Offense:
Total Offense (YPG): 311.9
Points Scored Per Game: 21.7
Passing (YPG): 206.3
Rushing (YPG): 105.6

Defense:
Total Defense (YPG): 237.2
Points Allowed Per Game: 13.9
Passing (YPG): 156.9
Rushing (YPG): 80.2

Ok, now let's dive in and figure out who will come out victorious. As you can see, these teams are statistical opposites. Arizona has an elite offense and an average defense, and Pittsburgh has an elite defense and average offense. To me, the first thing that this says is that this will be a relatively low-scoring game. Both defenses should be able to keep the opposing offense from getting into too much of a rhythm, meaning that touchdowns should be at a premium in this game.

Let's talk about the specific match ups now, starting with the Pittsburgh offense and Arizona defense. The Cardinals' defense has played much better during the postseason than they did during the regular season. They have forced 11 turnovers during their 3 postseason games, which has been a huge part of them getting this far. They still have a lot of question marks on defense, though, as their regular-season stats can attest to. The Steelers' offense has been playing essentially on par with their regular season play, meaning that they have been managing the game and avoiding huge mistakes. They don't score a lot of points because they don't have to thanks to their defense. Their running game, while not notable, is probably better than their passing game, so when the Steelers have the ball expect to see running backs Willie Parker and Mewelde Moore getting the ball very often. This strategy should help them to grind out a touchdown or two, but if they can't get their passing game going they will have issues getting anything more than that.

Now, to the other side of the ball. The Steelers' defense is, as you can see from the stats, outstanding; in fact they are probably better than any other in the league. They really don't have any weaknesses when it comes to specific players, but it is easy to pick out the outstanding players, which makes it easier for opposing offenses to attempt to scheme against them. But for the most part, this is a defense that you have to be 2 or 3 steps ahead of if you want to succeed against them at all. The Cardinals' offense is also an outstanding unit. Their running game is basically a non-factor, although running backs Edgerrin James and Tim Hightower have stepped it up a notch this postseason, but that's not saying much. It is the Cardinals' passing game that is their biggest strength. Larry Fitzgerald is one of the top 5 recievers in the league, number 2 reciever Anquan Boldin is also outstanding (even while playing through injuries), and number 3 reciever Steve Breaston is an unsung hero of this offense (over 1000 recieving yards during the regular season). Kurt Warner's veteran leadership and poise, though, have been what has driven this whole team to this point. It is hard to frustrate Warner, and that combines with his recieving weapons is a deadly combo. My guess is that the Cardinals will be able to score only 1 or 2 touchdowns at the most against the mighty Steelers defense, but their passing game and Larry Fitzgerald's ability to make things happen should net them a chance to try a few field goals as well. But also watch for the Steelers' defense to create some scoring of their own as well to help out their offense.

So, it's time to make my official prediction. To review, I said that the Steelers' inability to pass against the Cardinals' defense would limit them only to a touchdown or two, but their own defense should also create a bit of scoring. The Cardinals' offense will also only score a touchdown or maybe two, but their passing game should help them get into field goal range a few times. Now, there is one more factor to consider: intangibles. I think that one of the deciding factors in this game, as with any other Super Bowl, will be who wants it more. Being a team that has never won a Super Bowl and was considered an underdog from the get-go, I think that the Cardinals easily have the advantage here. They just plain want it more than the Steelers do. Thus, my prediction for Super Bowl XLIII is:

Cardinals 16, Steelers 14
MVP: Larry Fitzgerald

Look to the Mountains,

Zalech

The Case for The Dark Knight

2009-01-18T19:17:00.000-06:00

First of all, as promised, I will post announcements for the blog. My only announcement this week is that there are no announcements for this week. So yeah, rather than wasting your time, lets get down to the nitty gritty, shall we?

As some of you may know, this Thursday nominations for the 81st Academy Awards will be announced; as for those of you didn't know that, now you do. There has already been much discussion about what films may get the nominations. Films such as The Wrestler, Gran Torino, and Slumdog Millionaire have been among the most frequently talked-about, but I'd say that a plurality of the discussion has circulated around the newest film based upon the iconic DC Comics superhero Batman (who, by the way, will have been around for 60 years as of this May), The Dark Knight.

Now, for those of you who have either not seen it and/or have been living under a rock for the past 8 months or so, here is the run down on this film. Directed by Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Prestige), The Dark Knight is the sequel to the 2005 Batman reboot Batman Begins, which was also directed by Nolan. It the film has Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) continuing his personal war on crime, with only allies being Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and new Gotham City District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Batman must question everything he believes and stands for, however, when he must face his greatest nemesis: the mysterious and maniacal Joker (Heath Ledger). The film has been a huge success, both critically (94% on Rotten Tomatoes) and financially (currently the 4th highest grossing film of all time) and has already won numerous awards.

Now that everyone is sort of on the same page, I would like to make arguments as to why this film should get nominations for 3 major awards at the Oscars: Best Supporting Actor (for HEath Ledger's performance as the Joker), Best Director, and finally Best Picture.

Let's start with Ledger since his case is probably the easiest to make. He has already won the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor, so I'd first of all I'd say he certainly has momentum going into Oscar season. But, aside from that, I think Ledger deserves it because gave an iconic performance, arguably the performance of his career, as The Joker, and here's why. Ledger did something that is very difficult for pretty much any actor to do: he took a well-known, often-portrayed character and created a brand new take on him while still keeping the character familiar and accessible to those who know and appreciate the character, and while also making the character almost disturbingly believable to boot. In the film, the Joker can be described as scarred, homicidal, insane, and a total anarchist, but he is also a character who is in ways philosophical, cunning, and even in ways brilliant. Admittedly, this is mostly a testament to the three men who contributed to the writing of the film (Chrisopher and Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer), but the idea I'm trying to get at here is that Ledger captures this perfectly, and he makes the film that much better because of it. Ledger said that he pulled most of his influence from The Joker's first appearence in the comics (which was a very dark, brooding interpretation), as well as the Batman graphic novel "The Killing Joke", and films such as A Clockwork Orange and The Man Who Laughs. Despite these influences, though, the character is decidedly Ledger's own, as he takes the elements from the aformentioned mediums and creates something new, exciting, and interesting, redifining the oft-recycled "clown prince of crime". It is because of this redifining and believable portrayal that I believe that Heath Ledger, rest his soul, deserves to be the first posthumous Oscar Winner in over 30 years.

Ok, now we'll discuss Nolan for Best Director. Just as Heath Ledger redifined the Joker, Nolan took that a step futher and redifined the entire Batman legendarium as a whole. The most recent Batman film that had come out before Batman Begins was Joel Schumacher's Batman and Robin, which was, in a word, disasterous. Schumacher temporarily ruined the reputation of both himself and Batman films in general with the campy, nausia-inducing film, and made the future of the Batman franchise questionable at best. Enter Christopher Nolan. Nolan ignored what had done before and decided to reboot the franchise, delving into the caped crusader's roots and making him into the disturbed, dark individual he was meant to be. The entire feel, the very essence of the Batman that came to be in Batman Begins and has been perfected in The Dark Knight can be credited to Nolan's boldness and creativity. He is also a notorious perfectionist, which explains why The Dark Knight flows so smoothly and seems as flawless as it is. Chirstopher is by all standards an outstanding director (and also my personal favorite), and The Dark Knight is, thus far in his career, his magnum opus. His creativity and quest for perfection, as they are evidenced in The Dark Knight, are the reasons that I would say that Christopher Nolan deserves to be considered for the Best Director Oscar.

Finally, let's talk about why The Dark Knight deserves to be recognized as the best film of 2008. What I mostly want to say here is that The Dark Knight is a film that is not simply a "superhero film", as many Academy voters would argue with a turned up nose. It trancends that. It has raised the bar for other films of its genre. It is doing for superhero films what The Godfather did for gangster films, what Rocky and Raging Bull did for sports films, and what Star Wars did for science fiction films. It is a film that is going to stand the test of time. I can already guess that "Why so serious?" is going to be an oft-quoted line among future film fans, and the interrogation scene between Batman and The Joker is one that will be seen as an iconc one in film. It's also hard to argue the fan response. Two of the three films that have grossed more than it, Titanic and LOTR: Return of the King, won Best Picture, which is pretty good indication that box office numbers do mean something. If you ask me, this film is hard to argue with for this award unless you are one of the stuck-up Academy voters who will inevitably scoff at it. The Dark Knight deserves to be the Best Picture of 2008, no matter what the doubters may say or think.

To conclude, let me just say that I hope that everyone who reads this finds it to be an interesting argument, and hopefully you will agree with me. Artsy-fartsy films that no one has heard of before (read: No Country for Old Men and Capote) can not dominate the Oscars forever...and hopefully at least some Academy voters can see eye to eye with me on that. See you next week, readers.....and don't forget to help me advertise! Tell your friends!

Look to the mountains

Zalech

Salutations (and all that other stuff)

2009-01-11T17:02:00.002-06:00

Well, this is it, my first ever post on my brand-spankin' new blog.....hopefully someone will actually read this....of course, I'm just getting started, so I guess I shouldn't expect all that much right away. Anyway, this first post is just to say welcome and to explain a few things about this blog.

I decided to start this blog simply because I was looking for a way to express my views and thoughts on various subjects in a way that could potentially be seen by a lot of people. Those of you who may know me in person know that I am not very good at verbally expressing my views in a person-to-person debate-type situation, but in written form I can communicate and put my ideas out much more effectively.......and what better way to do that than with a blog? Basically, on a tentatively weekly basis I will write a new post on whatever issue I feel I should discuss. It might be my opinion on certain political matters, my thoughts on happenings in the sports world, a review/recommendation of some form of media (a book, movie, TV show, etc.), or just random musings that come out of my hamster-wheel run mind. No matter what it is, I assure you that it will be quality material that you will find interesting (and yes, I will try to add some humor of course).

Now, there are some other things that you may notice about this blog. On the right side of your screen you will find two features: a weekly poll and a weekly "Top 5" list. I encourage you to vote in the poll and read the Top 5 list; they're just there purely for your (and my) enjoyment. Other features may be put up in the future, but for now we'll stick with just those two (I'm still learning how to use Blogger, so bear with me). I may even change it so that there is more than one poll/list per week depending on (ahem) feedback. Along those same lines, I will make any announcements about new stuff or other changes to the blog at the beginning of regular posts.

Finally, two things. First of all, I will enable comments on my posts (although I think you have to be a member to comment....I'll check on that and get back to you), BUT I must ask that if you disagree with me you do so in a courteous and appropriate manner. Be respectful to me and any other users who comment.....I don't want any huge arguments going on because of one of my posts, and if that ever does happen (even once) I will turn off comments for good. Blogs are meant for civilized posting/discussion, not bad-blooded arguments, petty squabbling, etc. So please be respectful. I want this to be something that's fun and enjoyable for everyone involved.....including myself. So hopefully you all will enjoy this as much as I will.....first "real" post will be up by next Sunday for sure(11/18). Oh, and one more thing....if you like this blog (or even if you don't), tell your friends about it! Help me advertise! Thanks!

Look to the Mountains

Zalech