Wow. 2016 and we are still burning witches, the world is still flat and the sky is still falling. For all our advancements in technology, we still are a primitive lot when it comes to things we ant prove and have very little understanding of.
Im not going to get into a long winded debate on green house gases and carbon capture and climate change. I'll save that for my next rant against the NDP. But what I 'AM' curious about is this...back in the 70's and 80's there were all these rumors of inventions. Guys inventing carburetors/motors that would go a 1000 miles on a gallon of gas. But the motor corporations would buy these guys out and stick their inventions in a closet so as to protect their market monopoly.
Given all the discussion of emissions and climate change wouldn't now be a good time to bring these inventions out? Or were they all lies and rumors?
And why isn't more emphasis being placed on trying to harness the power of lightning???
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Thursday, June 16, 2016
DONALD TRUMP: THE 'NEXT' U.S.PRESIDENT
Yes, I can say that with a straight face. Im serious. I am fully confident Trump will be the next US President.
As a Canadian, how can I say this?
Ok...first...I wish to state I am in no way comparing countries, or political institutions. Im simply going by how people 'in general' are. We are looking at voting and behaviour patterns OF people.
The US and Canada have similarities in their democratic systems. Given the stupid, the spiteful, the uneducated and the innocence of younger voters ( innocence of younger voters is a category all of its own. There are plenty of OLDER stupid, spiteful and uneducated voters too. Its just the placement of 'that' factor in the sentence.) believing they can actually affect change and how that got the NDP elected in Alberta, which alone put Alberta in the rear view as a place to live/work and invest. Forget about the oil woes on this one.
These same people elected Trudeau, Mr Selfie. Its easy to win an Election when you only need 2 provinces to get elected. Ontario and Quebec. In the last federal election, not a single vote out West counted. The election was over when Ontario and Quebec finished voting. But I digress.
Factoring in basic human nature and the mob rules mentality, factor in certain similarities between Canada and the US, Factor in a world in turmoil and pissed off, and factor in the stupidest choices Canadians have made electorally in years as a measuring stick for basic human world mentality and you now have elected Donald Trump as President of the United States of America.
Now lets watch and see.
As a Canadian, how can I say this?
Ok...first...I wish to state I am in no way comparing countries, or political institutions. Im simply going by how people 'in general' are. We are looking at voting and behaviour patterns OF people.
The US and Canada have similarities in their democratic systems. Given the stupid, the spiteful, the uneducated and the innocence of younger voters ( innocence of younger voters is a category all of its own. There are plenty of OLDER stupid, spiteful and uneducated voters too. Its just the placement of 'that' factor in the sentence.) believing they can actually affect change and how that got the NDP elected in Alberta, which alone put Alberta in the rear view as a place to live/work and invest. Forget about the oil woes on this one.
These same people elected Trudeau, Mr Selfie. Its easy to win an Election when you only need 2 provinces to get elected. Ontario and Quebec. In the last federal election, not a single vote out West counted. The election was over when Ontario and Quebec finished voting. But I digress.
Factoring in basic human nature and the mob rules mentality, factor in certain similarities between Canada and the US, Factor in a world in turmoil and pissed off, and factor in the stupidest choices Canadians have made electorally in years as a measuring stick for basic human world mentality and you now have elected Donald Trump as President of the United States of America.
Now lets watch and see.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
San Andreas Plot Thought
How is it San Francisco was hit by a Sunami in San Andreas?
If the earthquake originated on land, wouldn't the subsequent 'wave' radiate out from San Francisco? In order for San Francisco to be hit by the Sunami, would not the earthquake have to happen farther out in the ocean?
If the earthquake originated on land, wouldn't the subsequent 'wave' radiate out from San Francisco? In order for San Francisco to be hit by the Sunami, would not the earthquake have to happen farther out in the ocean?
Taken 3 hmmm moment
So Liam jumps out of the car as its pushed over the cliff...but all shots of the vehicles doors show them completely closed...hmmm.
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Women ARE Womens Worst Enemy
Im not bashing women here. Im simply stating the obvious.
Did you read my last post? Particularly the part about how people would react to a Bautista VS Angelina Jolie James Bond style fight. I said they would be furious. And guess what...promotions for the new X Men movie show Mystique being strangled and now Women's groups are outraged.
Violence against Women!!! Sinead O Connor has lost her mind over this one. WTF would a Janet Bond movie be? The same thing.
I Told You So.
LADIES...Hollywood women complain about not enough women in leading roles but don't do anything about new scripts
...You want equality in the movie industry but complain about the violence towards women when given the opportunity. The violence is equal if you ask me. The men beat up the men just as badly...if not worse.
...You say a woman can play Bond but complain about the violence shown to Mystique.
In action adventure movies there is a lot of fighting. In which the good guy usually takes as many lumps as he gives out. Sure in a scripted fight a women wont get hit, but that's unrealistic. And the facts are men have much more bone density and hence why women are more prone to broken bones. In the real world a woman cant take the shit kicking a man gives out although there are exceptions. And the majority of society isn't willing or ready to accept violence between men and women especially if the woman comes out the loser.
Its the same reason why you don't see coed contact sports. The physical differences between men/woman make this type of scenario unrealistic.
So ladies...just what do you want?
Im all for equal pay and equal opportunities for equal services rendered regardless of gender. But some things aren't sexist. Simply more a matter of morality. And it almost seems like you are complaining about the fact we have them.
Did you read my last post? Particularly the part about how people would react to a Bautista VS Angelina Jolie James Bond style fight. I said they would be furious. And guess what...promotions for the new X Men movie show Mystique being strangled and now Women's groups are outraged.
Violence against Women!!! Sinead O Connor has lost her mind over this one. WTF would a Janet Bond movie be? The same thing.
I Told You So.
LADIES...Hollywood women complain about not enough women in leading roles but don't do anything about new scripts
...You want equality in the movie industry but complain about the violence towards women when given the opportunity. The violence is equal if you ask me. The men beat up the men just as badly...if not worse.
...You say a woman can play Bond but complain about the violence shown to Mystique.
In action adventure movies there is a lot of fighting. In which the good guy usually takes as many lumps as he gives out. Sure in a scripted fight a women wont get hit, but that's unrealistic. And the facts are men have much more bone density and hence why women are more prone to broken bones. In the real world a woman cant take the shit kicking a man gives out although there are exceptions. And the majority of society isn't willing or ready to accept violence between men and women especially if the woman comes out the loser.
Its the same reason why you don't see coed contact sports. The physical differences between men/woman make this type of scenario unrealistic.
So ladies...just what do you want?
Im all for equal pay and equal opportunities for equal services rendered regardless of gender. But some things aren't sexist. Simply more a matter of morality. And it almost seems like you are complaining about the fact we have them.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Janet Bond? PLEASE...Movie Fail!
OK...This is getting ridiculous. Ladies...I get that you want equality (when it works in your favor)...but JANET BOND??? Really? Give me a fucking break!!!
No...don't pull that shit with me and roll your eyes...I am all for equal rights, equal pay...but enough with the "not enough women in leading roles" sympathy trip. Its old and I have run out of sympathy for you. And before you bash my head in...READ first my explanation as to why I feel this way.
First off...if there aren't enough roles out there promoting women in leading roles we need to look at the movies being produced, the companies producing them and the people writing them. It ALL starts there with the script. Get creative...write a script...lets see you do something about it instead of mere whining.
Next...Janet Bond??? Really??? Guaranteed to fail.
It was a role first brought out in the 50's. It was written FOR a man. And for over 60 YEARS it has been a man. It wasn't written for a woman. Plain and simple. The action scenes wont support a woman in this role. James Bond takes a shit kicking. Like Angelina Jolie is gonna take down Bautista in a one on one fist fight. It isn't realistic.
Conan was remade with Jason Momoa instead of Arnie. Now this remake was a great movie. Its only problem was that they called it Conan the Barbarian. Now that automatically opened the movie up to criticisms of the original starring Arnie. They didn't have to do that. The movie was good enough on its own. But now comes under negative reviews because of a comparison to the original.
Same here. Make up a new series. Written with a woman as lead. A new name. So it is judged on its own merits not bitterly attacked and judged based on 60 years of men only in the role. It isn't fair and it will fail and everyone will be going what's wrong with the world?
When you think of 007...you think of a man...James Bond. Not Janet Bond. It will always be that way. If it was to be a woman, a woman should have been introduced into that role right away, not after 60 years and fighting age old stereotypes.
Im sorry...Janet Bond will fail miserably. If a woman is to have a chance at breaking stereotypes in movie roles, she doesn't need to be fighting 60+ years of role bias and gender conditioning. Write a whole new script...a whole new series. Let it sink or swim on its own merits without the hinderance of the past to drag it down. Bring out something original.
Or is that the REAL problem...Hollywood has no originality left?
No...don't pull that shit with me and roll your eyes...I am all for equal rights, equal pay...but enough with the "not enough women in leading roles" sympathy trip. Its old and I have run out of sympathy for you. And before you bash my head in...READ first my explanation as to why I feel this way.
First off...if there aren't enough roles out there promoting women in leading roles we need to look at the movies being produced, the companies producing them and the people writing them. It ALL starts there with the script. Get creative...write a script...lets see you do something about it instead of mere whining.
Next...Janet Bond??? Really??? Guaranteed to fail.
It was a role first brought out in the 50's. It was written FOR a man. And for over 60 YEARS it has been a man. It wasn't written for a woman. Plain and simple. The action scenes wont support a woman in this role. James Bond takes a shit kicking. Like Angelina Jolie is gonna take down Bautista in a one on one fist fight. It isn't realistic.
Conan was remade with Jason Momoa instead of Arnie. Now this remake was a great movie. Its only problem was that they called it Conan the Barbarian. Now that automatically opened the movie up to criticisms of the original starring Arnie. They didn't have to do that. The movie was good enough on its own. But now comes under negative reviews because of a comparison to the original.
Same here. Make up a new series. Written with a woman as lead. A new name. So it is judged on its own merits not bitterly attacked and judged based on 60 years of men only in the role. It isn't fair and it will fail and everyone will be going what's wrong with the world?
When you think of 007...you think of a man...James Bond. Not Janet Bond. It will always be that way. If it was to be a woman, a woman should have been introduced into that role right away, not after 60 years and fighting age old stereotypes.
Im sorry...Janet Bond will fail miserably. If a woman is to have a chance at breaking stereotypes in movie roles, she doesn't need to be fighting 60+ years of role bias and gender conditioning. Write a whole new script...a whole new series. Let it sink or swim on its own merits without the hinderance of the past to drag it down. Bring out something original.
Or is that the REAL problem...Hollywood has no originality left?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)