Dan for Mayor

I was thinking of writing an entry about a couple of different things, but the ideas made me extremely angry.  I won't go into what I was thinking of writing about that made me so upset my breathing became shallow, and my fists and teeth clenched. 

I guess I'll have to work out when I get home or find some way to get rid of that pent up anger I have towards certain people at the moment.  So, I decided to write about the following.

Since I finished "Corner Gas" a few weeks ago (all 108 episodes!), I was lacking something good to watch on my iPad before I went to bed.  With "Corner Gas," I probably watched two or three episodes per week before I went to bed.  It took me a while to get through, and after I finished the episodes time just seemed to vanish and I had none.



So the other night, I had some rare extra time before bed so I took full advantage and began to watch another TV show.  This one is called "Dan for Mayor."

While the show is not as funny as "Corner Gas," it still is an interesting story revolving around the character of Dan Phillips (Fred Ewanuick).  Upon hearing news from his former flame, Clare (Mary Ashton), that she is engaged, Dan feels the spastic need to top her news.  He blurts out that he is running for mayor of the town of Wessex, where they live.

When asked by his best friend Jeff (Paul Bates) later why he made such an avowal, Dan replied that he wanted Clare to see him as serious rather than a slacker 30-something working as a bartender at Fern's. 

While everyone around Dan thinks his campaign is a joke, he tries to prove them wrong.  At the end of the pilot episode, he is finally able to scratch together the candidate's fee to get his name on the ballot.

As the pilot closes, the current mayor gloats to his aide upon walking out of city hall after Dan pays the candidate's fee.  As he steps down from the sidewalk to cross the street, thinking he's won another easy mayor's race, BOOM! 

Long story short, Dan is the lone candidate for mayor.  What'll he do?  Although this show is certainly not along the level of "Friends" or even "Scrubs" in terms of plots or laughs, the story is simple, the people are quirky, and it's fun to watch Dan's journey.  The writing is decent enough that you get a few chuckles in each episode.

If you're interested in watching this show, you can find, just like Corner Gas, all episodes of Dan for Mayor on YouTube.

 

Airplanes over Deacon's Walk

It's been said that movies try to prepare us subconsciously through subliminal suggestion to accept future events before they occur.  This way, the events will not seem as much of  a shock to us. 

Take 9/11.  Conspiracy theorists claim that some of the perpetrators had Illuminati ties and had foreknowledge of the event.  It was even allegedly referenced in movies, particularly with analog clocks, dates, and other appearances of the digits.  Again, pure speculation. I've no idea if it's true. Below is a screen capture of the episode "The City of New York Versus Homer Simpson" from 1997.

Similarly, people argue that the prevalence of alien invasions/contact made in science fiction movies is trying to subliminally tell us that this type of event will occur some day.  Again, whether this is true, I have no idea, but it certainly is interesting to ponder every once in a while.

That brings me to the title of this post, airplanes over Deacon's Walk.  For those of you who do not know, Deacon's Walk is the name of the neighborhood in which I live.  I have a great house that overlooks the Pike Creek Valley and I can see a long way from my deck.  The sky is open, and it's a great place to relax especially now that it's getting warmer. 

However, for the past six months, something odd has been going on in my neighborhood. Something strange. Something no one talks about. But the question is: do people notice? I think they must, given the in-your-face nature of what happens. People are for the most part home at 8 pm or 9 pm each night. So what gives? (This is what it looks like)

I have a legitimate question about what the hell these things are flying over my house every now and again towards the end of each month.  My brother has seen them.  My neighbors have seen them.  And when I researched them, other people have seen them too.  But no one knows what they are.

They fly low.  They are triangular.  They have four lights on them and if they were exact triangles, they would have one in each vertex, along with one in the middle of the interior. Unless you are standing directly below them, they are silent.  They can rise, however, very quickly.

These planes (I think they might be military, as Dover Air Force Base isn't too far away, nor is New Castle County Airport) fly extremely low and the first few times I saw them I felt like they were going to crash into one of the houses or my own.  I would say that they fly about 500-600 feet off the ground, which from a deck or an upstairs bedroom is slightly scarier. 

The pattern for the past six months is that they fly low and circle the neighborhood (not just the city of Newark, say) three or four times before they vanish.  I've seen them completely disappear on a cloudless night once.  I don't know if it's ever the same plane.  Sometimes the lights look a little different. 

I don't know what they are but it's very creepy.  After the once per month that we see them, they are gone and I forget about them.  But I do know for a fact that in January, February, and last night the same type of thing occurred.  Low flying.  Circling.  Gone.

In fact last night my brother asked if I saw a huge plane on my way home.  Truth is I did, and I slowed down my car to get a better look at it.  It was dark but I saw the distinct triangle and light pattern I'm familiar with from other times. Then I saw it once more after that from inside the house.

What are these things?  Why do they fly so low?  Does anyone know what I'm talking about?  If so, let me know your insights.   

Tourney Time!

Well ladies and gentlemen, it's that time of year again.  It's time to get out those brackets and fill them in way you hope the NCAA tournament to go.  Although given that it's the NCAAs, don't expect your brackets to go as smoothly.  But don't worry.  It's not just you.

Everyone is going to pin their hopes on someone to either make the Final Four or win it all, only to have that plan go awry at the hands of a team who you've either never heard of, or by a mid-major that got lucky. 

The best team who I have losing to UNC though, in the Sweet Sixteen.

Nonetheless, it's still a fun enterprise, even for amateurs.  I've done it all with regard to the bracket picks over the years and if there's one thing I learned, it's follow your gut.  If you don't have a good feeling about a team or you find yourself picking a team just because they're a one seed, don't take them.  There's a reason it doesn't seem like you believe in them.  Listen to yourself.

That being said, here is an overview of some of the methods that people use each year, along with my thoughts on each...

1) Pick all higher seeded teams

This is a valid method and probability does suggest you would do quite well.  However, remember that some years all number one seeds have been gone before the Final Four.  It's usually a safe assumption that most will make it past their first few rounds, but that's not always the case.  I like this method, except for the fact that it takes the fun out of picking a few upsets here and there that allow you to get ahead of others in your pool who pick higher seeds out of laziness.

If you feel like you're picking a #1 seed or other highly seeded team just because the media and  your friends are, does not mean you should if you feel uneasy about it. 

I just picked Syracuse in the bracket from my buddy Pete (called UConn, if anyone is interested in joining) but I don't feel good about them and probably won't pick them in any other brackets because they haven't proven themselves and I don't think they will this year either.

2) Pick all lower seeded teams

People do this, but remember that probability does not favor this outcome.  No #1 seed has ever ever ever lost to a #16 team, and it's unlikely to happen in the future.  Sometimes history can be a good guide.

3) Pick based on the mascots

I know people, women especially, who do this.  I have no opinion or data on the statistical aspect of whether or not this works, but I do not recommend it.  It might be unique and a non-mainstream way to go about the bracket, but I don't think it pans out.  Unless you get a good combination of mascots associated with good teams.  Most people I know go for "cuteness" of mascot as their criteria for selecting each game.  This rarely is helpful to their chances.

I bet this person, who picked the St. Peter's Peacocks based on cuteness alone, didn't do very well since they bowed out in the first round.

4) Coin flip method

For this, pick all top teams from the beginning to the Sweet Sixteen, except flip a coin when you have the dreaded 8/9 matchup.  From the Sweet Sixteen, flip a coin for each matchup that you have.  Again, this worked for a friend of mine once, but I have never tried it myself.  Go for it if you dare.

5) The "More Famous" Method

Any school that's worth its weight will have some sort of celebrity alumni.  Do a little research. Pick based on that.  For example, let's say you're torn between Wichita State and VCU.  If you go on Wikipedia, look up their notable alumni.  Wichita State: most notable would be Dennis Rader (the BTK serial killer).  VCU: none were found. There you go!  Easy as pie.

6) The coolest method to picking the NCAA tournament bracket?

Cut out all the teams into their own piece of paper. Go to the top of the Empire State Building (or Sears Tower, but do not use the Statue of Liberty as the prevalence of water defeats the purpose) and toss them off.

Run to the bottom of the Empire State Building and fight past the doorman to find your shreds of paper. If you are lucky enough to find a single one, pick that team to win the whole thing no matter what. It is fate personified.

I hope everybody does a bracket and has fun.  Most importantly, go with your gut.  You can research all you want but at the end of the day, just pick who you want and have fun.  Also, did you know that most upsets occur in the 12/5 seed matchup?  You should have at least one of those.   

Good luck to Temple and also to Elena Delledonne and the University of Delaware women who won their CAA Conference Tournament yesterday.

It All Started With a Big Bang

So it's been too long, and I have decided that I needed to make time to write  a blog entry.  I debated about what to write about, and then the idea occurred to me.  I'd go back to my bread and butter, which is television and movies.

Recently, TBS picked up "The Big Bang Theory" and they run blocks of episodes a couple of nights a week.  I watched this show when it first came out, but as I got busier and busier with school, I was never home when it aired so I forgot about it.  That is, until I caught a few episodes on TBS, and now I'm hooked.  It's one of the few shows I look forward to each night and I think it's hilarious.

Granted, it's not for everyone and I understand where the nerdy personas and subject matter could be off-putting for some people, but I think everyone should at least give it a shot.

The show centers around roommates Leonard Hofstadter (Johnny Galecki, "Roseanne") and Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons), their two friends, and their babealicious new neighbor, Penny (Kaley Cuoco, "8 Simple Rules for Dating my Teenage Daughter).  The friends, whose character names are Raj Koothrappali (Kunal Nuyar) and Howard Wolowitz (Simon Helberg), work with Leonard and Sheldon at CalTech where they are all scientists.

Being nerds, they lack many social skills that would help them get girlfriends and some of their hobbies tend toward the geekish.  Leonard has a crush on Penny, and their on again, off again relationship is one of the major plot points of the show.  I envision them as the new Ross and Rachel from "Friends."

While the episodes are typically self-contained and the action is fairly limited in terms of scope,  the dialogue is witty and quick.  The characters are also interesting and have their own quirks.

Sheldon, for example, lacks emotional intelligence and has an inability to empathize.  He has difficulty recognizing sarcasm, nuanced language, and has difficulty expressing affection.  This goes back to his repressive childhood with his born again Christian mother no doubt.  He seems to be most like Spock, where he uses logic in various situations to assess emotion or to guess what people mean when they speak to him.  He does so quite awkwardly.

Sheldon:  Leonard, I'm moving out. 
Leonard Hofstadter: What do you mean, you're moving out? Why? 
Sheldon Cooper: There doesn't have to be a reason. 
Leonard Hofstadter: Yeah, there kinda does. 
Sheldon Cooper: Not necessarily. This is a classic example of Münchhausen's Trilemma: either the reason is predicated on a series of sub-reasons, leading to an infinite regression; or it tracks back to arbitrary axiomatic statements; or it's ultimately circular: i.e., I'm moving out because I'm moving out. 
Leonard Hofstadter: I'm still confused. 
Sheldon Cooper: Leonard, I don't see how I could have made it any simpler.

Raj, on the other hand, is shy and has an inability to speak to women unless he is drunk.  Ergo, he constantly whispers in his companions' ears what he wants to say in the presence of women.  Drinks in his hand, however, are another matter.

Howard lives with his mother and is the only one of the four who does not have  PhD, and they never let him live it down.  He thinks he has swagger with the ladies but does not and is always embarrassing himself in the process of trying to hit on and get women to date him.

The show centers around your typical sitcom problems: breakups, problems with friends, parents, etc.  But the four core characters have excellent on-screen chemistry and I'd have to say Sheldon is my favorite and I see a bit of myself in him.  But I also relate to hopeless romantic (albeit nerdy, misguided) Leonard.

When you add in a parade of guest stars and other recurring characters, such as Christine Baranski as Leonard's mother, Laurie Metcalfe as Sheldon's, and others, the show is a great half an hour of tv to watch and I've begun to catch up on the new episodes.

My favorite newer character is none other than TV's "Blossom" herself, Mayim Bialik as Sheldon's new "girlfriend" Amy Farrah Fowler.  Say her name out loud.  A couple of times.  It's funny.  One of the other running gags is that her name is said in its entirety each time, again which I think is a riot.

The show also has had famous physicists as guest stars, and I hear that Spock himself, Mr. Leonard Nimoy, is going to have a cameo in the spring.  Can't wait!  Now get out there and watch yourself some TBS to catch up!

Sheldon Cooper: Good morning, Amy. 
Amy Farrah Fowler: It most assuredly is not. 
Sheldon Cooper: Are you experiencing dehydration, headache, nausea, and shame? 
Amy Farrah Fowler: Yes. I also found a Korean man's business card tucked into my cleavage. What happened last night? 
Sheldon Cooper: Oh, memory impairment. The free prize at the bottom of every vodka bottle. 
Amy Farrah Fowler: Sheldon. 
Sheldon Cooper: All right. Last night, you gave me some excellent advice regarding my problem here at home. You kissed me, and then vomited on and off for 40 minutes, following which you passed out on your bathroom floor. I then folded a towel under your head as a pillow, set your oven clock to the correct time because it was driving me crazy, and I left. 

Those Zany Talkies

I thought I would take a break from all of the economic gloom and doom I've been writing about recently to write about an excellent movie that I watched with my brother last night.  I'd been putting off seeing it.  I thought I knew what to expect, but at the same time I wasn't sure.  It's won various awards in the run-up to the Oscars, including ones for film and acting.  So here goes...


When I sat down with my brother last night to watch "The Artist," I had heard many things about it.  Some said it was boring and weird, while others said it was a work of cinematic genius. Having watched it only once, though, I must agree with the latter view.  In fact, I'm putting my money on it to win Best Picture at the Oscars, along with Best Actor for Jean Dujardin.  I saw "The Descendants."  Clooney was his usual...ok.  

Although I knew that the film was silent, unlike some idiots in England who didn't realize this, went to see it, were outraged since they didn't know it was silent and demanded their money back, I thought I'd give it a try.  I'd seen other silent films on TMC or AMC or one of those older movie channels and I usually watch them for a few minutes and laugh as the people on screen in black and white prattle on about something while a moment later, a sign pops up reading "Surely you Jest!" or something equally ridiculous that didn't begin to describe the conversation they were having.

But this film was different.  When I saw Jean Dujardin speak at the Golden Globe Awards to accept his award for Best Actor in a comedy or musical, I assumed that since he was French that the film was in French.  I assumed that it would be a silent film with french title cards subsequently subtitled in English. 

I was very surprised when the cards were in English, and not only that, there were some big names in the film, namely John Goodman and James Cromwell.  Penelope Ann Miller and Missy Pyle (I saw her on Broadway as the German part of the love quadrangle in the hilarious "Boeing, Boeing") also had small roles.

While I won't give away any of the ending or most of the plot, I will gloss over some of the main plot points to combat any doubters and hopefully encourage some of you to see the film.  The film opens with a wide eyed, soon to be starlet descending upon Hollywood/Los Angeles to make her mark (the lovely Berenice Bejo as the upstart, chipper Peppy Miller).

She ends up literally bumping into Dujardin her first day outside the studio as part of a gawking crowd waiting for him to exit the stage (he plays George Valentin, the era's star of the silents), and causes a stir that lands her on the cover of that week's Variety with him.  While initially embarrassing and causing those gossipy tongues around Hollywood to wag about Valentin's love life, it eventually lands her a part in one of his films in 1927.  

Long story short, we flash to 1929 with a rising Peppy Miller who has taken on lead roles in these new so-called talking pictures, while George Valentin remains locked in the past and soon is unable to find work because he refuses to let go of the silent film era.  He thinks that talkies are not the future and we see his self-doubt at making the leap from silent film era star to movie sensation.

The film chronicles Miller's and Valentin's careers, lives, and special bond that they form and ends with what I will term, something perfectly appropriate.  The film, in black and white, is nearly all silent.  However, if you can get past the first few minutes and let the musical score take you back to the era of Hollywood glitz and glamor, flappers and starlets, you will not be disappointed.  

The music guides the film, along with the title cards that pop up occasionally to alert the viewer as to what is transpiring.  It's all brilliantly done.  Is there any dialogue aside from the title cards?  I guess you'll have to watch it.  Plus, there's Dujardin's adorable dog who is right there throughout the film.  It clocks in at about an hour and a half, and if you don't believe me, it got a 97% on RottenTomatoes.com.  

Thanks for reading and if you're trying to decide which Oscar contenders for Best Picture to watch in anticipation of trying to see the film that won so you can talk to all of your friends about it, definitely choose "The Artist." It is beautiful, brilliant, happy, sad, heartbreaking, and it's something I think you'll want to see again.  Enjoy!

Protect yourself from Financial Meltdown

As I mentioned yesterday with my blog on fiat currency, you need to start protecting yourself for the future in case the economy gets worse.  Word has it in inner circles of Bilderberg (look it up and form your opinion about it) there was a debate ongoing among the power elite whether to have the world suffer a slow, painful recession drawn out over many years, or a Great Depression that went for the jugular and hurt people much more quickly. 

It appears, at least for now, that we are in the midst of a longer and soon to be worse recession.  If you read the news, the World Bank (think one-world banking system) has scaled back its economic growth prospects for developed nations in the Eurozone and the United States.  A lot.  If that doesn't hint of recession coming in fuller force, I don't know what does. 

The dollar, incidentally, has lost over 41% of its value in the past ten years alone.  Other currencies are gradually climbing against it in value, if you take a look at the foreign exchange (forex) charts.  In other words, it seems like each day the dollar is losing value, even in small bits.

But how can you protect yourself?  Here are some ways...

1. In the short term, invest in foreign currency.  If you have the ability, open up an Everbank account.  They have CDs available in 3, 6, 9, and 12 month terms in the currency of your choice.  They also offer CDs labeled "Market Basket" CDs that are a few different currencies at varying percentages.  For example, you could buy an Emerging Markets CD with 40% Brazilian Real, 30% South African Rand, and 30% Indian Rupee.  It's a good hedge against the dollar.





However, if you cannot or do not open a CD, even exchanging some of your money at your local bank for Swiss francs and Norwegian kroner (my favorites) just to have that alternative currency is a good idea.  If you have pounds or euros left over from a recent trip to Europe, I would either convert them at your bank or at least take the cash and invest them in something else. 

It might be a little more costly to get the francs, but your dollar gets you 5.8 kroner as of early morning today. Check your exchange rates.  If the dollar does melt down at least you'll have something to use for exchange.

2. Buy gold and silver!  I know gold is expensive at the moment, but its value usually increases inversely with the dollar.  Why do you think your purchasing power with a dollar is so low, while gold has skyrocketed?  Silver is also extremely cheap right now ($40 or so per ounce), and its value is also related inversely to the dollar.  You can expect it to go up much more in the future.

  Gold and silver will always retain their value simply because they are seen as valuable to the general populace.  

Also, cash for gold is a SCAM!!!  Not only do most of the companies short you (go to a bank or to a local, reputable coin dealer if you need the scratch that badly).  These people only want your gold and silver because they know you're desperate for dollars, and they can sell it easily for a 10-20% markup to someone else.

3. If you can, pay off additional mortgage principal or, if possible, try to pay off your mortgage commitment in the next few years.  Real Estate is a GREAT tangible asset to have.  And one more thing. 

The mortgage game...doesn't it seem unfair (we know bankers love their money) that by the end of your lifetime after you've taken out, let's say, a $100,000 mortgage, that you pay 2 to 3 times that back to the bank for the privilege of them "lending" you the money?  That, to me, if we're speaking about the power elite, seems like the greatest con of all.  We accept it as adults if we can afford to buy a home because we learn that that is what one does.

You need to get a mortgage, but why?  Well, your parents did, their parents did, etc.  It's quite normal, but think about the actual financial burden placed on you for life assuming a 30 year loan.  It's a lot and I think more and more people are realizing this.  It's often called the "middle class trap," but how is it avoidable?  It's not really, for almost all of us.  Sad but true.

4. Spend your dollars while you have them.  Tangible property is going to be HUGE in the future!  Treat yourself now. Refinish that basement.  Buy that refrigerator.  Remodel that deck.  Everything that people deem to be valuable (nice houses, gold, silver, foreign currency) has worth because people will always believe it to be, regardless of the economy. 

The Power Elite and the Economic Downturn

A week ago, I said that I was going to write about a few topics of potential interest to conspiracy theorists, and I decided for this entry I would write about the Illuminati through the guise of our financial system.  Again, only you can think for yourself and decide whether or not so-called "Illuminati" exist in your construct, but for now enjoy the ride and let's get to it.

Who are the Illuminati? 

The Illuminati is a term given to any number of secret societies who work behind the scenes and who allegedly hope to establish a new world order with one government.  More importantly they hope to establish a one world fiat (paper) currency for the world to use, according to some. Unlike today's currencies, though, this currency would be backed by something.

 While I am not certain about the idea of ultimately having a one-world government, I do believe that the modern day Illuminati could be construed as bankers and governments, working together to control the money supply.

Think about this: we have been raised in a capitalist society where our core values as Americans are to make as much money as we can and buy as many things as we can, even if we don't need them. Spending money makes us happy, even if it means working longer hours and sacrificing time with the family unit or our own health so that we can gain wealth. 

I again post, for your information, a picture of our one dollar bill as seen above, and below it, an Illuminati symbol:



Whether or not you believe in the catchall phrase Illuminati to describe what is going on in our world right now economically and politically, I do find it creepy that the symbol the Federal Reserve (something that is technically unconstitutional...look it up!) chose to use on our money  is similar to a key Illuminati symbol.  Do you hold US dollars, or federal reserve dollars?  Look carefully.

That brings me to the main point that I wanted to write about, which is that this power elite we see before us on the news, led by Ben Bernanke, the World Bank, the IMF (International Monetary Fund, or Illuminati Monetary Fund to some), and others in the Bilderberg group, seem to think that printing more Euros, dollars, or [name that currency!] is going to solve the debt crisis in Europe and the building one in the United States.

"Money" is what these people tell you it is.  It used to be that most paper currency was backed by some measure of gold, silver, or other commodity.  What is today's money backed by anywhere in the world?  Faith in banks and the financial systems that surround them, I suppose.

Since the Roman Empire it has been shown that fiat currency fails at some point, as mounting debt cannot simply be eradicated by printing more money (think the Fed's new panacea, "Quantitative Easing").  The debt is eventually so unsustainable that the paper currency ends up being worth only the paper it's written on, literally, at the end of its lifespan.



I've been doing a lot of research on this lately and it appears that two very important events are happening concurrently: one is the devaluation of the dollar, and the second is the rise in prices of commodities, particularly metals.  In the end, those metals and other commodities are really going to be the only thing that have intrinsic value and will help get you through an economic crunch.

From what I've been reading, the devaluation of the Euro throughout this European debt crisis is eventually going to lead to its demise.  The demise of the dollar may still be a few years off, but it seems that it will follow the fall of the Euro at some point.  As you know the dollar is the world's reserve currency at the moment, so if the dollar collapses, other world currencies will follow.

What do we do then?  Remember, I am just presenting a different side of an argument and it is up to you whether or not to believe it.  I do believe, as history has shown time immemorial, that we will see an end to fiat currencies some day.  So I do hold some stock in what others are saying.  I hold enough stock in it that tomorrow I will be writing of things that YOU can get now as an alternative to insure yourself against any monetary meltdown  [insert capitalist irony here].