Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Alcatraz
For some of you, Harry Potter is huge. Friday last week (opening day) a friend of mine instant messaged me to ask if I was excited about the new Harry Potter movie. "Not as excited as you, I imagine," I responded.
To be honest, I've been kind of indifferent about Harry Potter. I mean, I'm not a great fan, but I'm not a detractor either. I certainly thought some of the outcry in the Christian community was a bit unfounded, and the emails that circulated with made up facts was little more than bearing false witness. I expect any day now to see a new email circulating that says if you watch Harry Potter while talking on the cell phone, you will become a brain cancer stricken devil worshipper. I'm not saying that the sorcery and divination of Harry Potter aren't worthy of question, but the outcry over it was way overblown with more pressing issues faced by the Christian community. Plus, with the logic some were suggesting, we would also need to remove The Wizard of Oz and perhaps even The Chronicles of Narnia from our bookshelves.
I did read the first two books of the Harry Potter series. They were good--not great, but good. Rowling certainly knows how to write a page-turner. However, I will probably not read any more of them. It's not that I dislike them, but there are so many books out there that I want to read that I don't have time for anyway...
Plus, I know a person , who knows a person who knows J. K. Rowling. He (the person I know) told me that he heard (from the person he knows who knows Rowling) that after the second book was such a hit, the publisher now sends every manuscript back to Rowling asking her to add a couple hundred more pages. They know that fans will buy the books no matter what, so if they can add a few more pages and increase the price significantly, they will stand to make lots more money (this is also why you have to wait longer for the next book). I guess if I could get the original, thinner form of the books, I might read them. But I'm not going to take the time to read the huge tomes that have come out in the last couple of installments.
Anyway, back to the movie. Yes, I did see Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban on opening night--not so much because I was dying to see it, but because Kathy wanted to see it and she's a pretty big fan (definitely once a huge fan, but maybe not so huge anymore). I went with no expectations. I mean I figured it would be better than a Star Wars prequel, but probably not as good as say, Spider-Man 2. I had seen the first two movies. They were okay, but not great. Clever and imaginative, but certainly not Lord of the Rings fare.
In fact, I had wondered if they would be able to continue to hold the attention of audiences for four more movies as the series is being continued. Floating candles and moving staircases are only intriguing the first few times you see them.
Well, let me tell you I was surprised. This movie was very good. I was engaged from at least after the first fifteen or so minutes to the very end of the movie. Having not read the book (I had started it, but never finished it because I ran out of summer two years ago), the plot twists took me very much off guard. I like it when a story is not predictable, and this one certainly wasn't--at least not to me.
I am not certain why this installment seems better than the first two, but it is. Maybe it's the fact that there's a new director. Maybe it's because Harry and his friends are growing up and I can relate to teenagers better than children. Maybe, the story was just better than the first two. I don't know--it's probably a combination of the three. Regardless, I recommend this movie to you if you are familiar with the storyline so far or if you like fantasy in general. I don't think you'll be disappointed.
Mischief managed...
1000 Families
Last night, Kathy and I were strolling along Waterfront Park when we came across the Speed Museum's outdoor exhibit of Ommer's work. The pictures are almost life-size and there were quite a few people taking a look. Each picture comes with a description of the family photographed, with the name and occupation of those in the portrait. Since Ommer, a German photographer, was taking the pictures in the late nineties, he asked many of his subjects what they hoped for in the new millennium. Their answers provide a glimpse into the global sense of hopefulness that all people share, regardless of their background or social standing. Also, from the look of some of the clothes the people are wearing, my hunch is that they ran to get the "best" item of clothing they owned. Often they will be wearing a shiny pair of shoes or what looks like a brand new jacket. The descriptions under the portraits are in English, French, and German.
While standing in front of a picture of a family from Colombia, a real-life visitor from Colombia approached us and asked if we would take his picture with the exhibit family from his native country.
Pardon the teacher in me, but let me suggest that if you are in the Louisville area and have children, take them to the park and examine each picture together. Bring with you an atlas of the world so that you can look up each country represented in the pictures. Set aside an afternoon because there are quite a few of the pictures on display (but not not anywhere near the whole 1000). Read each description and reflect on what life might be like in that country. This could also be a lesson for your children (and you!) about appreciating the things we are blessed with in our country. Most of the families photographed seemed very poor by our standards. However, there still seemed to be a general sense of happiness and hope for the future.
Below is a low-res picture I took of Kathy standing next to one of the exhibits. Unfortunately, we only had the camera on my cell phone. The man in the picture trains monkeys to climb trees and retrieve coconuts. Notice that there is a monkey standing next to him much like a child with his father. Pictured at their feet are two coconuts.
The pictures will be on exhibit at the Overlook on Waterfront Park until September 19 and at the Speed Museum until November 28.
Chronicles of My Riddick Experience
How do you create a Science fiction/movie franchise? Ask David Twohy, the driving force behind the possibly ongoing Chronicles of Riddick saga. I say "possibly ongoing" because the future of the storyline (according to what I've heard) depended a whole lot on ticket sales from the first two opening weeks of The Chronicles of Riddick which debuted at #2 in its opening week but sunk all the way to #6 this past weekend. However, considering it has now made $42 million which is $2 million more than Pitch Black made in its entirety, we may see more of Riddick.
But wait...I'm getting way ahead of myself. There's much to be explained, isn't there? Way back in the year 2000, then barely known actor, Vin Diesel stared in the movie Pitch Black as anti-hero, Richard B. Riddick. Diesel's character is a prisoner of a mercenary simply named Johns who is presumably transporting him to get a reward when their ship crash lands on a planet where the sun hardly ever sets. Well, it sets about every twenty-three years or so, and wouldn't you know it--Riddick, Johns and a whole group of survivors are there at just the right time. Once night falls, monsters come out of the ground. Pitch Black fell squarely into the science fiction-horror genre along the lines of the Alien movies. Oh, and since as you may have guessed from the title, at one point in the movie everything goes...well...pitch black, and you might also find it interesting that among Riddick's more interesting characteristics is his surgically enabled ability to see in the dark.
Flash forward four years and Vin Diesel is a big star now commanding eight-figure salaries. Plus, that little movie Pitch Black, originally made for a measly (by Hollywood standards) $23 million has created a healthy cult following. So how do you make a sequel? With the Alien series, the first movie was good...and really, so was the second one, Aliens. But by the time you get down to the third and fourth installment (I won't include in this example this summer's Alien vs. Predator), all you really have is four rounds of Sigourney Weaver fighting an ugly monster.
Well David Twohy dreamed big, really big. If he had followed the Alien plan, he could have had Riddick back on the planet for round two with the creatures that only come out at night. However, he decided to do something on a much grander scale in this summer's Chronicles of Riddick. He not only changed genres from Sci-Fi/Horror to Sci-Fi/Adventure, but he set about to create an epic Space Opera. But this is not George Lucas fare. Riddick is no Han Solo, and he's certainly not a Luke Skywalker. This series is much darker. And if there is going to be a franchise, Twohy wanted to do everything possible bring us quickly up to speed on Riddick's backstory.
How can I explain this? You see, as of this summer, there are now four parts to the story so far. Twohy wants to do a trilogy, but from what I understand, Pitch Black is NOT part one. This summer's Chronicles of Riddick is part one. Consider Pitch Black to be a prologue where we get introduced to the Riddick character. In fact, EVERYTHING will now fall under the title Chronicles of Riddick. The newly released DVD version of the first movie has now been renamed Chronicles of Riddick: Pitch Black. And my guess is that if Twohy gets the go-ahead to make two more movies, this year's movie will eventually get a subtitle the way the first of Lucas' movies became Star Wars: A New Hope. My prediction (and you heard it here first) is that the current Riddick movie will eventually become known as Chronicles of Riddick: The Underverse if later movies get made.
Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick are so different that if I could make a bad Star Trek analogy, the first movie would be kind of like your run of the mill TV episode that's easily forgotten like the one where Kirk meets Abraham Lincoln. But Chronicles of Riddick would be as significant as Wrath of Khan in the ongoing history of the Riddick character. In fact, if you've never seen Pitch Black it wouldn't matter in terms of following the story in Chronicles.
So as I mentioned two paragraphs up, if Twohy is going to create a whole Riddick universe and ongoing franchise, we've got to get up to speed on the background of the Riddick character. He has done this through the release of cross-media. The Matrix series did this in 2003 with the release not only of the final two installments in the movie trilogy, but also through a straight to DVD collection of animated stories (The Animatrix), a video game (Enter the Matrix), and a collection of comic book stories. All of this was designed to give a back story to the events in the movies and give the fan details which were left out of the cinematic tellings. And of course the Star Wars and Star Trek series have done this for years by including video games, novels, and comic books that expand on the stories in the movies.
So this year to coincide with the release of Chronicles of Riddick, fans also have a video game (Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay), and a straight to DVD animated tale (Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury). The video game helps to set the stage for Pitch Black explaining how Riddick got his eyes that see in the dark. And the animated tale bridges the gap between the first and second movies.
So here's the proper chronological order if you're following this so far:
1. Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay (video game)
2. Chronicles of Riddick: Pitch Black (first movie)
3. Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury (animated DVD)
4. Chronicles of Riddick (this summer's movie)
These stories are set in what seems to be our future. I say that it is our future (as opposed to something like the Star Wars universe which takes place "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away) because there are cultural references and slang that originated in our culture. But unless, I missed it, no one has ever said for sure.
I had not see Pitch Black when it was first at the theater. In fact, I barely remember it at all. But I was intrigued by the trailer and online buzz surrounding Chronicles of Riddick, so I rented it two days before going to see the current movie. As I've already mentioned, the first movie is very different from the second one. Everyone calls Riddick an anti-hero. In the second movie, that description applies, but it's hard to know if it's applicable in the first one. In Pitch Black, I can't decide if I even like Riddick at all. I mean anti-heroes range from the selfish Han Solo in the Star Wars stories to perhaps even (on the other extreme) Warren Beatty's portrayal of Clyde Barrow. To me an anti-hero is someone who is flawed but either does good things in the end (like Han Solo) or doesn't do good things (like Clyde Barrow), but because of the way the story is told, you are drawn to him anyway.
In Pitch Black, I don't know if I even liked Riddick. He was selfish, arrogant, mean, and there was very little if anything redeemable about him. Let me give you a comparison. In the first Star Wars movie, Han Solo is a fairly selfish guy and says he is not going to help the Rebellion fight the Death Star even though they really need him. But in the end, he changes his mind and comes through for them because his conscience makes him. Well in Pitch Black, there's one point in the movie where Riddick is going to take the only available ship and leave the planet even though he knows he is leaving the other survivors to a certain death. Had the ship's captain not caught up with him, he would have certainly gotten away with it. However, when one character makes the ultimate sacrifice for Riddick in the movie, you begin to feel for a moment that perhaps Riddick does have a heart after all because the act seems to visibly move him. That was enough to intrigue me and make me want to see more.
As I've mentioned, this summer's movie is vastly different from the 2000 installment. How do I describe it? This movie is so large. In it Riddick comes out of a self-imposed exile to stand in the way of an oppressive force known as the Necromongers--a group of bad guys that are somewhere between the Empire in Star Wars and the Borg in Star Trek. It turns out that he isn't a nobody, but a person of huge significance for the future of freedom in the universe. The movie has a very unexpected ending (which oddly reminded me of the Conan movies) and honestly, I have no idea where Twohy will go with sequels if he makes them. Chronicles of Riddick received a PG-13 rating opposed to the R rating that Pitch Black received. Both language and violence were toned WAY down. In fact, most of the fight sequences were shown through quick cut-away shots that give the viewer a sense of action but very little detail.
After seeing the first two movies, I rented the video game, Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay from Blockbuster. Most video games that are movie tie-ins, frankly stink. Escape from Butcher Bay is a rare exception. Visually, it is one of the most graphically detailed games ever created for the X-Box (it is not available for the PS2 or GameCube). Although much of it plays like a first person shooter, it is much more than that. Also involved is quite a bit of stealth, problem solving, and there's even a short run in mech assault type armor. As I've already mentioned, this game serves to explain how Riddick got his "nightvision" and how Johns (the mercenary) and Riddick came to be aboard the ship in Pitch Black. The story revolves around Riddick's attempt to escape from maximum security prison, "Butcher Bay" (also referenced in the current movie). I had the game rental for a week and played it all the way through with a day to spare. It is rated M for mature because of violent content and language. Violent content can be lessened in the optional settings. What I don't understand is why video games don't have similar features regarding language.
Tonight, I rented Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury. Chronologically it takes place immediately after the events in Pitch Black. Riddick, Imam, and Jack (Kyra)--the survivors of Pitch Black are taken captive aboard a ship of mercenaries. The story is written by David Twohy and the animation is primarily the work of Peter Chung who also was behind "Matriculated" in The Animatrix (incidentally, Chung's work is some of my least favorite in Animatrix, but that's just me). We are also introduced to the mercenary Toombs who is prominently featured in The Chronicles of Riddick. I was disappointed that after spending $4 for this rental, the story lasts only about 35 minutes. There are a handful of behind the scenes segments, but nothing really that stands out. It's too bad that they didn't have time to create a few more Riddick stories to go on this disc. Although this is supposed to bridge the five years between the first two movies, I think it would be safer to say that it bridges about a day's worth. There's certainly room to tell a whole lot more. For instance, although it is hinted at, what really caused such antagonism to develop between Kyra and Riddick by the time we get to the second movie. Yes, we are told that he left when she needed him and all that, but her feelings were really intense by the time Riddick finds her in this summer's installment. Interestingly, in Pitch Black, actress Rhiana Griffith played Jack and also provides his voice in Dark Fury. The grown up Jack-turned-Krya in Chronicles of Riddick is played by Alexa Davalos.
Throughout the storyline so far (with maybe the exception of Escape from Butcher Bay) is Riddick's own personal struggle against his own nihilistic tendencies and perhaps even faith in something beyond himself. In the first movie, Imam, the Islamic cleric (played by Keith David), tries to encourage Riddick to have faith. Imam tells Riddick that his problem is that he doesn't believe in God. Riddick counters that it's Imam who doesn't understand. Riddick explains that he was found as an infant in a dumpster with his umbilical cord around his neck and that he's spent more than half his life in prison. He says that it's not that he doesn't believe in God. On the contrary, he does believe in Him and he hates him. He is out for self. But it's the sacrifice of Fry in Pitch Black that seems to reach beyond that tough exterior and hints that perhaps there's something more than just a hardened criminal in the person of Riddick. In Dark Fury, in one particular tight spot, Riddick simply says to Imam, "Pray." And then in Chronicles of Riddick, there is a religion that the Necromongers bring to conquered worlds, but it is not a religion of freedom but of darkness and slavery. When they conquor a people, they offer the simple chance to either convert or die. Conversion leads to reorienting one's thoughts and begins a life devoted to eventually reaching the "Underverse." Riddick rejects such a distortion of faith. It will be interesting to see if Twohy continues to pursue this part of Riddick's faith journey (if there are future installments).
The only part of the Riddick push I haven't taken part in (and don't plan to) are the novelizations of the movies. Although the first was done by a writer known for writing novelizations of movies, Chronicles of Riddick is novelized by sci-fi great, Alan Dean Foster. The makers of the series are trying very hard to create a hard core sci-fi franchise. This summer's movie made Riddick's world seem immense--Frank Herbert-Dune-size immense. The question remains as to whether or not they will be successful. Right now, reviews seem to be a bit mixed. I enjoyed my time spent with Riddick, but it didn't intrigue me as much as The Matrix series did. Nor did it stir my imagination in the way that Tolkien did when I read his books as a teenager or even when I saw the original Star Wars trilogy. But who knows...maybe Riddick will grow on us.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Side note: Has anyone noticed that movie rentals have gone up to $4? When did that happen?
The R.I.A.A.: A 21st Century Mafia, Part 2
If you haven't read part 1 of this blog, scroll down and start there. Otherwise, you won't be up to speed.
Okay, where were we? In part 1 I tried to expose the fact that the actions of the RIAA in all their lawsuits was little more than bullying people into paying them money. Also, I wanted to point out the fact that our current laws on copyrights are in a mess because they have not kept up with our technology. Further, I tried to get YOU thinking about what kind of law is actually being broken in peer-to-peer music services, and begin to think outside the box in regard to the way musical artists and their fans exchange services (in this case, music) and payment for their service.
I left you with the suggestion that you pick up a book called Next: the Future Just Happened (which is already more than two years old, so if you haven't read it yet, you're really behind). And I even suggested that you borrow my copy. I suggest that you borrow my copy because, in reality, that's about all music swapping is equivalent to. Let me explain.
There's a reason that the original Napster was shut down (and you know of course, that Napster 2.0 has nothing to do with the original Napster, don't you? They just bought the rights to the name). The way Napster worked was that you bought the newest Avril Levigne CD and created MP3 files on your computer from it. Then you uploaded those files to the Naptster website, using their software which allowed other people to download the music. Pretty easy right? Yes, and even with our messed up copyright laws, the original owners of Napster had trouble defending what they were doing. Nevertheless, they uncorked a bottle of change upon the music industry. They demonstrated that music is easily transferred back and forth in data form. Further, once it's in data form, it's pretty easy to get it for free. And then, people everywhere really liked the idea of getting music for free. The problem was, however, that all the music was stored in one location. So once the RIAA legally targeted Napster, all they had to do was shut down Napster's servers to stop the music swapping.
As detailed in the book Next, the very day that Napster died, peer-to-peer song-swapping was birthed through the use of the networking software already built into the operating system of your personal computer. What peer-to-peer file sharing does is to set a folder on your computer with full download rights from any user. Software such as Kazaa and Limewire merely provide an interface for networking software that you already have. These programs allow you to do searches all across the internet for whatever song or artist or album (or video, video game, software title, etc) that you are looking for. Once you have performed your search, you find a list of what you are looking for available for download.
So, say for instance, that you want to get a copy of the song "Don't Tell Me" by Avril Levigne, but you don't want to pay for it. Well, perhaps -I- have paid for it and it is in the shared folder on my computer. You might be in another state or even in another country. But the internet connects us just as if we were in the same room with a crossover network cable between us. If you have a fast enough connection, within a few seconds, you have a copy of "Don't Tell Me" on your computer that is no different than my copy.
Now, getting back to the RIAA lawsuits...as I pointed out in my last blog, the RIAA isn't suing people who are downloading music, they are suing people who are sharing music. So, theoretically, they wouldn't sue you for making a copy of my "Don't Tell Me" MP3, they would sue ME. And this brings us back to the question I was asking at the end of my last blog--exactly what is it that I have done that is so illegal?
I don't remember exactly where I heard it, but the closest equivalent I have ever heard is that it is like someone leaving the doors to their personal library unlocked and wide open and letting anyone come in and get whatever they wanted. How is that illegal?
Let me restate what I said in the first blog. I am not condoning theft. I am being critical of our current copyright laws and our lawmakers for their inability to keep up with technology and the bullying tactics of a bunch of middlemen (the the music producers represented by the RIAA) who are making desperate attempts to hold on to a passe way of doing business.
Notice also, that there is a lot of spin that goes on in the way the RIAA presents their case. They talk about people stealing music. I guess that's because it's hard to rally people around the idea that you are going to sue someone for sharing something.
Since "stealing" music gets so much of the attention, let's go back to that idea. What is downloading a music file off the internet equivalent of? Well, about this much--have you ever gone into the library and made a photocopy of an article out of a magazine or book? Every photocopied an entire chapter? If you've ever done anything like this, you're about as equally guilty as the 15-year-old who downloaded "Don't Tell Me" from the shared folder on my computer.
But wait! you're thinking to yourself... Isn't it perfectly legal to make a copy of an article out of a magazine for your own purposes as long as you're not going to sell it or make any kind of financial gain from it? Okay, think about that really hard and apply it to the whole issue of song swapping. What's the difference? What's the real difference?
By the way, there are those who would make the case that it is illegal for you to even make a copy of that article for your own personal use, but I don't care to chase that rabbit.
In the final part of this series, I am going to throw a few more scenarios at you that aren't easily answered, and then take a look at the attitude of the current popular culture (especially teenagers) regarding this issue and demonstrate to you why this is a genie that is NOT going back into her bottle easily.
Stay tuned... a little while longer...
Who Is Really to Blame for 9/11?
In the news today was the report that our air defense system was unprepared for the September 11, 2001 attacks . Evidently there was a huge breakdown of communication between the Executive Office and our military even in issuing the order to shoot down the planes. By the time the orders were made clear, all planes had crashed into their targets (with the exception of the United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania).
Tonight's news showed family members of victims killed at the World Trade Center who wept over the fact that perhaps if communication had been better their loved ones might not have died.
Maybe...maybe not.
I certainly don't want to be insensitive to those who lost family members, but I think it's a bit presumptuous to make arm chair criticisms of the way things were handled after the fact. Certainly, it's come to light that our intelligence agencies were not in communication regarding pre-strike information. That should have been different, and I assume will be from here on out.
But I've been a bit bothered as I've watched some of the Independent Commission on the 9/11 attacks. I've felt that there was this overwhelming desire to find a scapegoat in all this--to find someone to blame.
Look...this event was unprecedented. We had never had anything remotely similar carried out in all of American history. It's hard to imagine how any previous administration would have responded.
Did everyone have all their ducks in a row? No. Will they be better prepared in the future? You bet. But all the preparation and communication in the world can't be 100% effective. Odds are--sad to say--that we will see this kind of event happen again, regardless of how prepared we are.
In the meantime? Do you really want someone to blame? Here's an idea... Why don't we blame the hijackers themselves? They did it. They are to blame. It's difficult because they are dead and we don't have them to stand trial and face the families of those who lost loved ones.
However, if it means anything to you, I can assure you that they are paying for it now...
________________________________________________________________________
And on a related note, this...
After getting nailed by a Daisy Cutter, Osama made his way to the pearly gates. There, he is greeted by George Washington. "How dare you attack the nation I helped conceive!" yells Mr. Washington, slapping Osama in the face. Patrick Henry comes up from behind. "You wanted to end the Americans' liberty, so they gave you death!" Henry punches Osama on the nose. James Madison comes up next, and says "This is why I allowed the Federal government to provide for the common defense!" He drops a large weight on Osama's knee. Osama is subject to similar beatings from John Randolph of Roanoke, James Monroe, and 65 other people who have the same love for liberty and America. As he writhes on the ground, Thomas Jefferson picks him up to hurl him back toward the gate where he is to be judged.
As Osama awaits his journey to his final very hot destination, he screams, "This is not what I was promised!"
An angel replies, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you. What did you think I said?"
Miniblog/Random Thought #2
Searching for Financial Peace
The only thing that has ever interested me about money is the ability to spend it. However, if you think about it, that attitude has all the maturity of a nine-year-old. A few months ago I began to grow up in regard to handling money. However, it was not an easy journey; it's one that I went into kicking and screaming until I finally gave in.
I used to make fun of people who did the "whole Dave Ramsey thing." I always said that I wasn't going to join that cult. It's funny I would say that because the joke about giving into his principles is that you've "shaved your head and drunk the Kool-Aid."
Why did I do it? It's really pretty simple.
1. I was tired of being broke all the time in spite of having a pretty good income.
2. I was tired of living paycheck to paycheck.
3. I was tired of watching my debt increase month by month.
4. I was afraid to look at a future in which I might not have any retirement saved meaning no financial security when I grow old.
If you can relate to that or if you're just plain interested, keep reading.
The thing I like about Dave Ramsey's plan is that it is manageable. You don't do everything all at once, but you go in what he calls baby steps. Here they are:
1. $1,000 in a "starter" Emergency Fund ($500 if income is udner $20,000/yr)
2. Pay off all debt (except the house) utilizing the "Debt Snowball"
3. 3-6 months expenses in Emergency Fund savings
4. Invest 15% of household income into Roth IRAs and pre-tax retirement
5. College Funding
6. Pay off home early
7. Building wealth! (Mutual Funds/Real Estate)
Kathy and I finished the full-blown Financial Peace University a little over a week ago. When I look back on how far I've come, it's been a long journey. Here's my story...
The fact that I've been irresponsible with money is strictly my fault. I was definitely taught better. My mother was a banker who always stressed saving and not getting into debt. However, I never really heeded her advice. I remember going through the registration line my sophomore year in college and getting my first credit cards. At the end of the line there was a table set up right in the way of students leaving the building. You actually had to walk around it to get out. They were signing students up for Visa cards and Sears cards. If you signed up for both, you got a t-shirt! Who-hoo! Well, guess who got a t-shirt? Yeah, that and a whole lot of misery.
I never really used those cards in college though. It was actually in the first month out of college in my first real job that I took on my first debt. I charged a $1400 laptop (it had 728K of RAM, a 720K floppy and a 20MB hard drive, and a monochrome CGA screen--this was 1990). It's crazy to think that the very first thing I would do out of college is leverage 10% of my yearly salary from my first job, but I did. A couple of years later I remember charging software to that Visa I got in college to the tune of about $200 and the snowball started rolling from there, but it was rolling up hill and getting bigger.
Flash forward a decade later and now I owe...well...I'm kinda embarrassed to say how much. But at last I'm finally growing up and starting to do something about it.
Dave Ramsey says that a sign of maturity is the ability to delay gratification. A friend counseled me a year and a half ago that my problem was that I want what I want when I want it. Gluttony takes on more forms than just food, and I was guilty of this sin. Heck, I was the poster child. I had the best computer, best laptop, best digital camera, best PDA/cell phone, and like the guy says on the TV commercial, "And I'm up to my ears in debt!"
I first put my debts in order from least to greatest with the idea to do a Dave Ramsey snowball well over a year ago. He says to list all your debts from least to greatest and start attacking the lowest one. Once you've paid that one off, take that amount and add it to the next debt. By the time you get to your last debt, you will be making huge monthly payments to get rid of what you owe.
I’d been tracking the debt for a while, and I am a Quicken junkie, so I have minute by minute scrutiny on my finances. However, my debt was not going down because I was still not changing one little (okay, actually big) habit--I was still charging. And, of course, there was no written budget, so when I didn’t have enough money at the end of the paycheck, I would charge meals or groceries or whatever I needed to get by. So I was watching my debt climb higher and higher—but, hey [input sarcastic tone here], at least I was tracking it, right?
Well, I finally got to the point that I had had enough. That was about the last week of December, 2003. I drew a line in the sand that said I wasn’t going to charge anymore. I remember sitting in a Starbucks that morning during the second week of my Christmas break. And I was resolved. No more charging...that was it. Dave Ramsey talks about having some kind of test after you’ve decided not to charge and usually it comes in the form of some kind of emergency. Mine was much worse. I’m telling you I was still in the Starbucks and it had not been but about two hours since I set my resolve before my phone rang and it was Apple Computer! They were calling to remind me that my year’s warranty would soon expire on my PowerBook and it would only cost $300 to renew it for another two years. I said that I didn’t have that much, to which she replied that she could just add it onto my Apple loan! And can you believe that for a split second, I almost did it! I have always bought extended warranties on laptops because the risk of breaking them is so much greater. But all of a sudden my resolve came back and I hung up the phone. I watched the deadline for my renewal come and go and that was that. Of course then a couple of weeks later, the strap on my laptop bag broke and it fell and now my PowerBook won’t close properly, but it still works (I'm writing this blog on it), and I don’t think that kind of accident would have been covered anyway. Regardless, I haven’t charged anything since the first week of December. My credit cards have all been torn up so now I can’t charge even if I want to.
Then a month later, I actually was able to track my debt go DOWN for the first time since...well, as far back as I can remember. Mind you it wasn’t much because I was only making minimum payments, but it was something. A year earlier my stepfather had offered to sponsor me through Financial Peace University if I would take it. So in February, I called and signed up and found a little church in Georgetown, Indiana offering it on Sunday nights (which was what I needed so that I could still continue to teach night classes at IWU on weeknights which I had started in January). They let Kathy take the classes with me at no extra cost.
I gave into this thing one step at a time. First, I was willing to do the debt snowball—a year ago. Then I signed up for the class after deciding not to charge anything else. I was going to do that, but I didn’t know if I wanted to do a written budget. THEN I decided to do the written budget, but I didn’t want to do that cash system/envelope thing. But I listened to all the CDs ahead of time and started reading the books, and decided to just do the whole thing. Kathy and I did separate written budgets in the month before we got remarried. Then after we married we were able to combine our budgets. And although Dave says it takes three or four months to really get your budget right, ours has been pretty solid from the get-go. We tweak it a little bit at our monthly family budget meetings, but it’s working well.
By working extra jobs such as teaching night classes at IWU and Kathy teaching summer classes at her school, and by selling quite a bit of stuff we weren't using anymore, we've been able, on average, to pay an extra $1,000 on our debts the last three months. I don't think we can keep up the momentum for an extra $1,000 of income coming in every month, but that was enough to get the whole snowball rolling and now three of the debts on the snowball are gone and those payments can now be applied to the next debt. It's rolling!
Dave says that normal in America = BROKE. I decided I don't want to be there anymore. If you're in similar straits, I really recommend this program. Plus, it's about much more than getting out of debt. It's comprehensive in regard to finances such as saving for your children's college the right way so that it will be completely paid for. He shows you how to properly invest your retirement savings and explains insurance and how to buy things cheaper than regular retail prices.
And the whole program is rooted in the Judeo-Christian principle of stewardship--that is, properly managing the things you've been entrusted to so that you use your resources to their best potential.
I will tell you that the plan is pretty simple, but it's not easy. It meant for me that I had to grow up, I had to be disciplined, and I had to be a man--but it's worth it.
As Dave says, "If you live like no one else, LATER, you can live like no one else..."
The R.I.A.A.: A 21st Century Mafia, Part 3
Okay, to read any further in this blog requires that you read the first two parts to this blog or none of it will make any sense. Scroll down if you haven't already.
Let's recap:
• All the lawsuits from the R.I.A.A. have been been settled out of court so far.
• The actions of the R.I.A.A. are little more than intimidation tactics similar to those applied by the mob AND probably have no legal standing.
• In reality, the lawsuits have not been aimed at people downloading music, but at those sharing music.
• Recording artists actually make very little on sales of their CDs. They make money at the concerts. Music producers by-and-large make HUGE profits from the sale of music.
• Copyright laws have not kept pace with the advance of technology. Current copyright laws are not only outdated, but make the current issue with unauthorized (the term I am going to use from this point forward for music downloaded for free off the internet) downloading of music even more difficult.
In my previous posts on this subject, I put forth the challenge to know exactly what law people are breaking by swapping music. And I could find little equivalent outside of making photocopies of copyrighted material (including magazine articles) at the local library. Now, let me make the water a little bit more muddy. Consider these dilemmas:
1) If the claim is made that unauthorized music downloads are stealing revenue from the music industry, what about the purchase of used CDs? Here in Louisville in the Highlands, there are a number of stores devoted to the sale of used CDs, tapes, and even vinyl records. When those transactions are made, how much of the profit goes to the artist? to the producers? ZERO.
Heck, forget the issue of the used CD stores. What if I decide I don't want Willie Nelson's Stardust Memories anymore and give it to you? Have we just stolen from someone?
Here's the reality: used media is a huge business in the United States today. I rarely pay full price for any entertainment anymore, nor do I buy it new. I buy "previously viewed" DVDs at Blockbuster because not only are they cheaper, but they also come with a lifetime guarantee. Last week, I went to Gamestop and bought a used copy of XIII for my Xbox. I paid $16 for a game that is retailing at Target for $50 and discounted at Sam's Wholesale Club for $44.95. Did the transaction between me and Gamestop violate any laws? any ethics?
I can promise you that if the copyright owners of these materials could figure out a way to stop the sale of used goods or take a cut, they would. When used bookstores started popping up twenty years ago, some publishers actually resorted to putting statements on the copyright pages of their books stating that they could not be resold. Nobody paid any attention and you don't see such statements today very often.
2) What about music recorded off the radio? Radio stations pay for the license to broadcast music and legally you can record it all you want. Someone might counter that the quality of the recording of music played over the radio doesn't match the quality of music on actual CDs. So what? Do you care (or even notice) when you play music on the radio? And in regard to quality, have you listened to some of the satellite radio services? It's getting very close to the quality of actual CDs.What if a person created their entire music collection from recording on the radio, converting the songs to MP3 format and then creating her own CDs, puts them on her iPod? Has anyone been paid for this copy of the music?
3) Can I copy your copy of music if I've already paid for it? In 1980 I bought Billy Joel's Glass Houses on cassette (I remember debating whether it would be more advantageous to get the cassette or the 8-track). I listened to the tape so much over the next two or three years that it finally squealed when I played it. Now, would it be legal then for me to make a copy of your Glass Houses CD since mine is messed up? I can't return it to the place that i bought it. But since I paid for it 25 years ago and since Billy Joel's people got their money, is there anything illegal or unethical about me making a copy of yours?
Well, heck, Rick...should we just let people copy movies, music and software all they want, willy nilly? No, the three aren't the same. Certain songs and versions of songs are associated with the artist. The song "Devil Went Down to Georgia" is a Charlie Daniels song (I've heard, but been able to confirm that Daniels is no longer allowed to perform this song because of copyright disputes, but if this is true, it serves to illustrate how the power in the recording industry is in the wrong hands). That song is associated with him, not with his music label, legal issues withstanding. However, movies and software are very different. If you get a job coding Photoshop software for Adobe, and then you quit Adobe and go to work for Microsoft, you don't take Photoshop with you. It remains Adobe Photoshop, and there would never be a Microsoft Photoshop unless Microsoft bought it or Adobe (heaven forbid). Finding Nemo is Pixar movie. If John Lassiter leaves Pixar, and goes to work at Dreamworks, he can't make Monsters Inc. II at Dreamworks. Only Pixar can do that. The movie is associated with the production studio.
Music is different. If you are a musician, really all we need are you and your music. You need the funds to produce your music on a wide scale, but I'm not so sure the current way things are done is the best way to do this. Back to that thought in a minute.
However, the issue of unauthorized music downloads is not going to go away easily. In fact, I would say that we can't go backwards. Online services such as the iTunes Music Store are only a temporary solution to make folks like myself have a clear conscience about how they obtain theuir music and to pacify folks like the suits who make up the R.I.A.A. However, this is not a long-term solution. More about that in a minute, too.
Here's the deal...here's why this isn't going away anytime soon... Have you talked about this at all with a teenager? I teach at a Christian school and what I've discovered when I bring this up with my students is that they just look at me with blank stares or at most bewilderment. The Gospel Music Association funded a study recently that determined that Christian teenagers are just as much engaged in unauthorized music downloads as non-Christian teenagers. If they want a song or CD, they just go online and fire up Kazaa. Evidently, it doesn't matter whether it's Brittany or Third Day. The ethics of it don't even come into play in their decision because this is how it's been done since they first got interested in music. Would they walk into Wal-Mart and steal a CD? No, but they have no ethical thought process at all when it comes to downloading it. So what do we do? Write up Sunday School lessons about music downloading? Add a new chapter to Why Wait? Hold weekend retreats to study the issue? I don't think that's going to settle the problem.
Plus, there is so much misunderstanding out there. I've come across people that still associate Napster with illegal downloads even though it is now a legal music download store. Same goes for iTunes. I've heard people referring to "illegally downloading music from those places like iTunes." And a few weeks ago I remember talking with a woman who thought she was authorized to download all the music she wanted because she had the "paid for" edition of Limewire.
Let me tell you, 3000 lawsuits from the R.I.A.A. aren't even beginning to influence the issue at all. People are still downloading, but they've gotten smarter. There are a hundred or more websites that give instructions for downloading music without getting sued by the R.I.A.A . The main thing they tell you is to simply make sure that file sharing is turned off on your computer since the suits have come against those who are sharing music and not downloading. And for those who are still scared in regard to downloading, the new thing is to go to public wi-fi spots with a wireless enabled laptop and sit there and download all you want. This suggestion was implied pretty heavily not too long ago by Kevin Rose on the Screen Savers who is often seen wearing a "Music Pirate" t-shirt .
See, here's how this works. Whenever you are on the internet, you have an IP network address associated with your computer. The R.I.A.A. simply fires up peer-to-peer file sharing networks and gets the IP address of the guy offering "My Sharona" by The Knack available for download. That IP address is traced to a particular internet provider, kinda like with a phone number from a bell system or cellular provider. They issue a subpoena to the internet provider for your name, and then they sue you (the owner of the computer with that IP address). However, if you are in a place with public wireless access such as a library, airport, hotel, or coffee shop, the IP address cannot be traced to YOU (unless you just never leave).
I am writing this blog from a Heine Bros. coffee shop in Louisville, Kentucky. They have free wireless internet access (which is why I've started hanging out here instead of Starbucks which doesn't have wi-fi in Louisville). A while ago, there were six of us with laptops open (three Apple Powerbooks, a Dell, a Toshiba, and something I couldn't tell--if you're interested). Know how you spot the guys downloading music? They're the ones with the headphones on because they need to hear samples of the songs they are downloading. You can also tell because internet bandwidth slows way down in places like this when folks are downloading music.
My point is this: music downloading is a part of the culture now. Many of the people doing it don't even realize that there are legal and ethical issues around it. Technology has changed the way people obtain music. So what can be done?
Here's my suggestion, and I don't claim any originality to this. The way the consumer and musical artist relate to each other is going to have to change. The days of the large recording labels need to go ahead and check out because they've been on the deathbed a while, and probably weren't a good idea to begin with.
Music itself needs to be free. There...I said it. How does the artist make any money then? Here's how...
First, I should note that I come across some people who just like to have a physical CD in hand. So the physical item may not ever completely go away. If people want these, then they should be able to pay for them, but not at the current prices in the music stores today.
Secondly, what we need to realize is that the iTunes Music Store (and other such services) did not prove that the majority of people do not care to have a physical CD, peer-to-peer music swapping did. The music itself needs to be free to the enduser/consumer to download from an artist's website, swapped freely with friends and family and even copied from the CDs of those who just have to have the physical product.
This changes the purpose of the CD or music files themselves. They become the promotion for the artist. You like the artist well enough to go to their concerts, buy their t-shirts, and put their bumper stickers on your VW van.
Everyone is happy except the suits at the record labels. They will have to go out and get real jobs...
Bored by the MTV Movie Awards
In years past, I've gauged how "in-touch" I felt with pop culture and especially the under-25 crowd by how many presenters I recognized. Last night I didn't even care that much. All I saw was two hours of self-absorbed, self-indulgent ego.
Consider Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore accepting the award for "Best On-Screen Team" (a very loosely defined category based on the nominees). They didn't really have anyone to thank, so they thanked the state of Hawaii where they filmed the movie. Seann William Scott who won for "Best Dance Sequence" in a very goofy and stiltingly memorized acceptance speech thanked Patrick Swayze, Kevin Bacon, and John Travolta (for their past dancing roles).
The MTV Movie Awards used to be known for their spontaneity. Regardless of how scripted it actually was, it used to not seem that way. Everything was scripted last night from the introductions to many of the acceptance speeches. And the scripting itself seemed poorly done.
Listening to Snoop Dog botch his lines as he used the award for Best Kiss to finagle a kiss from Paris Hilton was nothing but painful. And what have we come to as a culture when the winners of Best Kiss are three individuals, not two?
In past years, MTV has spoofed the most popular movies of the year. They moved away from that this year and engaged more in dialogue and faux interviews from Will Ferrell's character Ron Burgundy from the upcoming movie Anchorman. Two were mildly noteworthy. The opening sequence featured Ben Stiller and Vince Vaughn portraying Hollywood producers trying to convince Peter Jackson (played by himself) to stretch the Lord of the Rings just a bit more into a fourth movie. It was mildly amusing.
And then Ron Burgundy interviewed Jim Caviezel (who portrayed Jesus in The Passion of the Christ). I'm still convinced that Caviezel is a clone of the taller guy on Adam 12, but that's another matter. In this piece, Ron Burgundy was under the impression that Jim Caviezel really was Jesus Christ in disguise. In the end Caviezel gets tired of denying it and gets up to leave in disgust only to walk across the top of a swimming pool as Ron Burgundy runs after him. Okay, we saw that (or something like it) coming, but it was still somewhat amusing. Caviezel was nominated for Best Male Performance for his role in The Passion, by the way.
Politically, the left was represented, but even that only felt like token representation. Jack Black was wearing a "Kerry for President" t-shirt. And Michael Moore, via a pre-recorded spot, plugged his new "documentary," Fahrenheit 9/11 under the guise of "we have 15 extra seconds because one of the winners isn't here." Sheesh.
Here's a lineup of what won:
Best movie: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Male performance: Johnny Depp, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
Female performance: Uma Thurman, Kill Bill: Vol. 1
On-screen team: Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore, 50 First Dates
Best kiss: Owen Wilson, Amy Smart and Carmen Electra, Starsky & Hutch
Best villain: Lucy Liu, Kill Bill: Vol. 1
Action sequence: "The Battle at Gondor," The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Dance sequence: Seann William Scott, American Wedding
Breakthrough male: Shawn Ashmore, X2: X-Men United
Breakthrough female: Lindsay Lohan, Freaky Friday
Best fight: Uma Thurman vs. Chiaki Kuriyama, Kill Bill: Vol. 1
Comedic performance: Jack Black, School of Rock
One final thought... I found it interesting that Lord of the Rings won both Best Picture at the Academy Awards and the same top spot at the MTV Music Awards. Everyone likes LOTR--young and old, liberal and conservative, religious and non-religious.
I guess in the end, Tolkien brings us together...
Stupid Computers...
A few days ago, a conduit was created for the iBlog software I use to write these blogs to allow me to create a "MoBlog." A moblog is short for mobile blog. What it meant was that I could take a picture from my phone, add a few comments, and email it to an address that would integrate it into this blog. Sounds nifty in concept, but I never could get it to work correctly, even with the help of the friendly folks at Blogsnaps.com .
In trying to get it to work--long story cut short--my iBlog software froze up (I even flashbacked to my days of using Micro$oft Windoze) and I had to terminate the program. When I restarted it again, ALL my blog entries were gone. I've tried since the weekend to get help with this, but Tech Support is in India, and I have been able to exchange one email a night with a tech guy from Lifli Software over the last three days. Convinced they weren't going to be able to help me anyway because the files no longer existed on my hard drive, I gave up and this afternoon just copied and pasted the blog entries back. I was able to do that because all the blogs were on the web from the last time I posted.
What seems stupid to me is that I can't turn it around backwards and recreate the blogs in my software from what is on my website. Seems simple enough to me, but evidently it doesn't work like that. Regardless, everything is back in place. I believe I got all the dates right and the categories right. However, the text is too large and so are my category icons. If I figure out how to fix those, I will.