|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Wednesday, 19 July 2006 |
In response to Al Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth, there is something bordering on hysteria occuring about the subject of climate change and global warming.
It's Not an Asteroid
Global warming right now is being talked about as if it's an asteroid on a collision course with earth. One day we're all going to wake up and the earth is going to have been transformed into Mars, and on top of that Mr. Gore wants to make us feel as if it's all our fault. It's stupid.
Let's Get Cyclical!
The earth is organic and goes through changes in cycles over time. We go through extreme temperature shifts every year between months. They're called seasons. Global warming is most probably a part of an environmental cycle on earth that is much larger than us. It is grandiose to think that we are the sole cause of global warming.
It is even more grandiose to think that we can somehow control it. Is everyone forgetting that we're at the tail end of an ice age? The earth should be getting warmer. Global warming is an inevitability just as the ice ages were an inevitability billions of years ago.
Can't Move Fast Enough?
When humans were a nomadic species we followed the food source. Nobody sat around as the food source was leaving, assigned blame, and then sat down refusing to move. The daily and yearly effects of global warming are almost insignificant. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to adjust to those changes as they happen. The buffalo certainly weren't moving off the plane at a tenth of a foot per decade.
Only The Elderly Will Be Killed by Global Warming
Humans are adaptable. There is no shortage of land. Technology is the best it has ever been. Travel is so good that we can pack up our things and be around the world in 12 hours. I have confidence we'll be able to outpace the effects of a tenth of a degree each decade. Of course, the elderly might have trouble.
Control Issues
Meddling more with the global climate in order to fix past meddling doesn't make sense and could lead to more unpredictable consequences. That is really when things become dangerous. And even if we could control it, wouldn't attempting to control global warming by meddling with the earth be just as bad as us messing it up in the first place?
Our goal should really be to removes ourselves from the equation as much as possible by encouraging people to have as little impact on the environment that they can. This way we'll be able to make the situation more predictable and able to be planned for.
Don't Panic
We can track the changes caused by global warming as they happen. It won't be long before we're able to predict them. Once we're able to predict we should have ample time in order to make the changes necessary. I just don't see why global warming is suddenly headline-worthy and alarmist documentary-worthy news deserving my panic.
[tags]Environment, Global Warming, Climate Change[/tags] |
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Tuesday, 18 July 2006 |
Life Sentences
Supreme court appointments are life sentences. Justices should not be able to resign. I am not a cold and unfeeling person for saying this. Requiring justices to die before appointing new ones is the only thing that keeps the political makeup of the supreme court shifting and changing. Otherwise, it is an inevitability that the court become stagnant allowing for abuses of powers.
Thanks Sandra!
Sandra Day O'Connor resigned in 2005 setting the precedent that supreme court justices could choose what administration they go out under.This action effectively freezes the political makeup of the supreme court. Justices may resign under an administration that is favorable to their political leanings in order to ensure that their replacement has similar political views.
If a political party can gain control of the supreme court then the actions of Sandra Day O'Connor ensure that the situation will stay that way for a very long time.
Abuses
A stagnant supreme court opens the door for abuses of power. Political parties have already overridden the checks and balances between the house and the senate. It won't be long until we will be able to start describing the supreme court as being under the control of one of the political parties.
While it is true that congress must approve new supreme court justice appointments, this is traditionally a rubber stamp to weed out candidates who are legitimately unqualified. It is also made incredibly ineffective if one political party is in control of Congress.
Legal Dictatorship
Sandra Day O'Connor's actions have made it possible for their to be a legal dictatorship in the United States.
Both parts of congress are able to be under the sway of one political party. The legislative branch; check. Political parties now have a mechanism for keeping control of the supreme court. The judicial branch; check. They've also closed the door to independent candidates through the use of ballot access laws which I wrote about in Two-Party Systems are No Party
The only other piece required for a legal dictatorship to happen in this country is for the executive branch to be willing to abuse power. It's a good thing that will never happen. Oh, wait.
[tags]Politics[/tags]
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Sunday, 16 July 2006 |
Luxurious Fakery
Filmmaking is hard work, because it's fake; all of it. Every single thing needs to be crafted, controlled, and timed. Performances need fine-tuning, sets designed, and even stupid things like where all the actors are going to stand need to be determined. There is, however, one luxury. Cameras will put to film anything put in front of them.
Draw the New York Sky Line from Scratch?
Animated filmmakers don't have this luxury at all. As many things as have to be controlled in a live-action shoot, even more things have to be controlled when producing an animated film. It's the difference between taking a snapshot of the New York sky line, and being forced to produce it from scratch on a piece of paper.
Animators = Better Filmmakers
It's not quite as clear-cut as I have painted it here. There are positives and negatives to each style. Even so, I believe when everything is weighed, that people trained in producing animated films are better at making films than those people trained solely in live-action filmmaking.
Planning
A person has to design, implement, and animate every element of animated production. With the number of hours of work it takes to create even a simple scene it is very important that there be a plan for a workable film before it goes into production.
Better Planning Through Necessity
Live-action filmmaking simply does not require as much depth in the planning. For example, the verbal script in an animated film must be more solid than a live-action one. A few minutes of extra audio here and there in a live-action movie costs relatively little money. The camera shoots what's in front of it, and the actors do the rest. In an animated film, every extra line of audio means more work lip-syncing. Brevity is key.
Better Planning Means Better Stories and Films
What all this planning trains filmmakers to do is use their resources more wisely. Those well versed in how much work it takes to produce an animated feature become very used to putting extra time into visualizing and working their vision into the most perfect script possible. Mistakes at the beginning of production mean lots of wasted time later.
This attention to planning leads to better paced and executed stories.
Visuals
As I said before, there is a luxury that is quite often taken for granted in live-action filmmaking. The camera will put to film anything in front of it. Animators definitely do not have this luxury.
As Lazy as Feasible
Live-action filmmaking can be as lazy as you want it to be. You could put together every single shot on a fake set specifically built for your shoot on a sound stage. Or, you could shoot on-location and just leave everything as-is. No matter what, animators still have to create every piece of visual information from scratch.
Important Details
Since everything is created from scratch, animators tend to know what key details are most important for getting their point across visually. Not every detail in a scene is important. The fact that we can watch cartoons proves this. Cartoons boil down visual imagery into more simple components.
The hands of cartoon characters frequently have only four fingers. We still recognize them as hands, and most people probably don't even notice. Cartoon artists know that a simplified hand drawn with five fingers ends up looking too crowded and distracting more often than not.
The fifth finger is an unimportant detail that can be left behind because the audience doesn't need it to understand they're seeing a hand. It's a side effect of how the human brain works. We never see raw imagery. We see an interpreted and idealized picture of the world around us. We categorize, split, and prioritize details as we're looking at things exactly as animators categorize, split, and prioritize details in order to get their point across.
Visual Robustness on the Cheap
Animators are trained to know exactly which details are important to the look and feel of a film. They can make their budget stretch further by making sure not to waste any time creating visual elements that are unimportant to the audience.
Unintended Consequences
All of these benefits do come with a few negatives. In short, animators tend to be control freaks. There's a funny little anecdote from the making of Amélie where Jean Pierre Jeunet talks about a day on the set where they waited for hours for this single car to move from the street so that they could shoot the rest of the scene. Jeunet felt that it was simply not his vision for that car to be there. Animators can get very used to controlling every piece of production explicitly.
Conclusion
These are just a few examples of how being trained in animation leads to better live-action filmmaking. I guarantee there are more, but I feel I've gotten my point across. I wrote this article because I tend to find the live-action films of former animators more interesting than other films, and I wanted to explore why that might be.
Films from former animators just tend to have a thicker and more developed visual style. It can definitely be seen in films such as Amélie and 12 Monkeys . They're movies that didn't have huge over-the-top budgets yet still manage to pull their looks off better than the more recent Star Wars movies. I can only imagine the kind of films a person like Terry Gilliam could produce if given substantially larger budgets.
Notable Animators/Directors:
Terry Gilliam: Brazil , 12 Monkeys, The Brothers Grimm
Jean Pierre Jeunet: The City of Lost Children , Amélie, A Very Long Engagement
[tags]Movies, Animation, Entertainment[/tags] |
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Friday, 14 July 2006 |
Ladies and gentleman I think we have a problem. I will be called unpatriotic and un-American for pointing this out. This is what happens when you do, right now, what the people who started this country said was the most patriotic thing you could do; question your government.
Today's subject: The Two-Party System in America.
The two-party system in place today is one of the many problems in this country, but you wouldn't hear the people in power talking about it as a problem, because it's good for them and keeps them in power. It keeps them in power by locking out potential competitors, independent candidates, with ballot access laws. Enforcement of the two-party system is about the only thing the two parties can agree on in a major way.
Ballot Access
The major parties in the United States shut independent candidates out through ballot access laws. They are laws which determine which names appear on voters' ballots.
More Candidates = More Work
In the 1880's ballot access laws were imposed. Sure it would have been most fair to put anyone who wanted their name on the ballot to put their name on the ballot and let the voters sort it out.
However, that would have required a lot more work. If history has shown us anything, it's that if people have the choice between less work and more work they will always choose less work.
Confusion vs. Government Power
Those in favor of ballot access laws were fearful that ballots might become cluttered in the future, and voters confused. Those against ballot access laws were fearful they would be used by those in power to edge out candidates with competing political views.
At the time it was tough to say who was right. It was all speculation. The only thing they knew in the short term was that elections were tougher with more candidates. A way to cut down severely the number of candidates with some very minor legislation seemed sensible.
Did They Work? Effectiveness?
In fairness, ballot access laws did work in the beginning. A very modest number of signatures were required in order to appear on the ballot. Dean Wigmore suggested the number be 10. This weeded out only candidates whose odds were severely tipped out of their favor.
But, they aren't working right now. It is not a coincidence that prior to these laws being enacted that the United States had more than two political parties.
More Severe Than Intended
Since ballot access laws were enacted they have been made more severe than they were initially intended. In lots of states 1,000-2,000 unique handwritten signatures need to be collected within a span of 14 days in order to get anything done. In many other states the laws are not so clear-cut. A special place in hell is reserved for the person who wrote the ballot access laws of Texas.
Texas, For Example
For an independent candidate to appear on the ballot for any office they must put together enough signatures to reach one percent of the votes for governor; the largest office. Then they have 60 days to put together enough signatures to reach this number. These signatures must also be verified being from people who didn't vote in the primary, and haven't already signed another independent candidate's petition.
Restrictive and Unenforceable Ballot Access
Good luck with that. People don't usually sign petitions with their social security number making this law unenforceable in any system where two persons are able to have the same name; e.g. our country.
Since these laws are created in order to keep candidates off the ballot, it will be almost impossible to defend the authenticity of signatures against lawsuits questioning them. The burden of proof will be on the independent candidate. Like I said before, people don't sign with their social security number making it impossible to verify the majority of the signatures collected.
Best Case
That's the best-case scenario for an independent candidate in the state of Texas. The laws governing the creation of a new political party within the state are even more confusing and convoluted. Fortunately, things aren't as grim in other states but they're still pretty bad. Take a look for yourself, here.
Conclusion
Anyone can bitch about the political state of things in a country, but no matter what they're complaining about they don't really count as problems unless there are significant barriers to changing the things that are wrong.
We do have a problem in this country. The only people willing to support abolishing ballot access laws are the very people ballot access laws shut out. What's the solution?
I wish I was just whining and this was able to be changed quickly and easily by the will of the people. George Orwell wrote in 1984 that the power is in the proles. They need to stand up. This article is the first step to helping those people have all the facts, and be able to stand up to the entrenched powers in the United States.
[tags]Politics, Voting, Constitutional Rights[/tags]
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Thursday, 13 July 2006 |
"How did you become successful in the publishing/entertainment/porn/professional clown industry?" -- Jackasses; Time Immemorial
Whenever minor celebrities appear on call-in shows they are inevitably asked one of the many forms of this question. It's a bullshit slightly loaded and ill-conceived question. What it boils down to is, "How can I become you?" With as many times as this question has been asked you would think that I might hear more than one answer. I haven't.
Answering the Question
People want to know the best course of action. The truth is that there is no best course of action. If you want to be a writer then it's very simple, you write as much as you can. You get as much of it published as you can.
The 2 key components of all successful creative persons are:
1. They produce as much content as they can.
2. They get people to give them money for as much of it as they can.
Brute Force
Brute force is the best way to break into any industry. The more people who see your name, the more people who read your work, and the more things you write; the better. There is no formula. Anyone who tells you there is doesn't know what they're talking about.
Most people who are successful will tell you that they did what they loved for many years for free before anyone would pay them for it. It pays to start young, and I guarantee you'll never make a decent hourly wage for writing. You must do it because you love it.
Out of Control
If you really love what you want to spend your future doing then that's not going to change, and you can't change the structure of the industry you're trying to break into. Even if your industry is all about who you know then you're stuck with it because you love doing whatever it is you do.
The only variables in the equation of success that you can control are the amount and quality of the work you produce. Everything else is fixed, and you would be stupid not to do the obvious things like distributing it to as many people as possible and accepting money for it when you can.
[tags]Success, Goals Setting, Personal Entrepreneurship[/tags]
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Wednesday, 12 July 2006 |
History
I've been listening to the not-so-velvety tones of Adam Carolla since I was 10. He and Dr. Drew Pinsky hosted a brilliant radio show called Loveline that dispensed much-needed advice to teens across the country. His sagely advice got I and many others through our teen years. Most of it sticks with me today, but that's mostly because I still listen and treasure the old episodes of Loveline that I've collected.
A Great Pair
The thing that made those years of Loveline so brilliant was the pairing of the two hosts. Dr. Drew has a vast wealth of knowledge of how to help people with complex traumas. Carolla has a gift for expressing himself and being endlessly pragmatic. They were the perfect match. Carolla was the musician that played the instrument that is Dr. Drew; umm I think you get the idea.
A Great Guy
Most people probably don't know that Adam Carolla is an all-around great guy. He's a devoted husband and recent father of twins. He works hard. He treats his family and friends well. He's smart, logical, and great at getting a point across. His analogies are watertight.
However, you'll see very few of these qualities on television. This is where most people draw their opinion of him from. They see shows like Crank Yankers and The Man Show, but ignore shows that show him as a real person like The Adam Carolla Project.
Adam is first and foremost a radio guy. He dislikes being in front of cameras, and actually dislikes attention being paid to him. He likes to talk and has things to say. I think if people actually listen to him they'll be pleasantly surprised.
He's definitely not the type of morning shock jock that Stern has been over the years. Adam is stoic in the face of the constant tides of the media. He doesn't buy into hype, and he doesn't care for personal garbage. He thinks logically, and for himself.
Illiterally a Millionaire
That heading says it all. Adam Carolla is literally a millionaire who is also literally functionally illiterate. It's not sexy, but it shows determination.
He's not a college graduate. His parents never gave a damn about anything he did. His Mom once asked him this rhetorical question, "Give me one good reason why I should get cable?" Adam had 2 shows on Comedy Central at the time. His father was invited to be on Loveline once but quickly backed out when he found out the show was not at 8pm on Friday nights.
He's a multimillionaire now that he has taken Stern's job doing morning radio on the west coast. He helps run the production company, Jackhole Industries, with his long-time partner Jimmy Kimmel. He wrote and secured financing for his upcoming independent film, The Hammer.
A functionally illiterate man has been a writer at most of the jobs he's had in the industry, and become a millionaire. What's your excuse?
Inspiration
Adam Carolla is an inspiration to me and I'm sure many other people. He proves that hard work and talent is rewarded in an industry that frequently gets criticized for being, "all about who you know." Adam met Jimmy when they were both nobodies. They were told they were not on-air personalities. They were told they shouldn't work together. 15 years later their careers just keep getting bigger every year, and their friendship marches on.
Adam Carolla means there's no excuse. If I genuinely think that I'm a hard worker, and that I have talent then the only thing stopping me from being successful is myself.
Timing
With Ann Coulter's recent appearance(7-8-06) on the daily Adam Carolla morning show, this seemed like the perfect time to write this article. You can read the transcript of what happened here. I've never felt prouder of a person who has long been one of my idols.
The world finally seems to be taking notice of him. Adam Carolla has a major radio gig. Tom Burbine, a professor at University of Massachusetts; Amherst successfully lobbied to have an asteroid named after him. I couldn't be happier.
[tags]Comedy, Radio, Politics[/tags]
|
|
|
