Random Thoughts and Junk

Terrorists are a bunch of doodoo heads!

Terrorism is on the rise… again. The worst thing about it all is, of course, the loss of life. Then comes the loss of property, which is also tragic too. But terrorism also reaping havoc on the world of witticisms as well. I’ll give you some examples:

A few years ago I had come up with the following lines:

“A wondering terrorist once told me by the light of the full moon, ‘ Kid, making love is a lot like blowing up a hospital… it’s not how much C4 you use, it’s which wing you put it in.’”

“The population is exploding when it should be EXPLODING.”

Well they weren’t all that funny to begin with; however now, not only are they not funny… they’re in bad taste too. As you can see I altered the first one and used it in my first entry.

But that second one, geez… it will never live to be used in context so to be taken out of context and blow up… err… backfire on me. But it still holds true though. There are a too many people around that don’t deserve to be (i.e. fools and idiots), and it’s time to thin the herd. But enough of that.

===

It Was Good…

The other day I saw a guy just randomly digging a hole in the middle of a field. Well, random to me anyway; to him it was there was probably a reason. But on Staten Island, you just never can tell.

And the maintenance guys and security guards passed him without saying a word; so I guess he was supposed to be digging a random-to-me hole in the middle of a field. I mean if security doesn’t stop a guy from digging up the lawn, he must have permission. But again this is Staten Island, and you can just never tell.< And you ever realize that stories always sound better before you tell them?

===

Hey FOX! >>BASH!< <

I heard on a forum the other day (always with the other day, what about now?!) that FOX is thinking of doing a live action Dragonball Z movie. As if they didn’t have enough of their own crap to make, they have to get in on producing crappy knockoffs of Japanese crap. Did I mention crap?

So I decided to fire up Photoshop to commemorate this blessed event. It too is crap, but in hindsight my subconscious made me make it that way to signify the crappiness of FOX’s crappiness.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

You Want to Ban What?!

Brain reboot in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1… ok Major Tom, you’re a go.

(This whole thing happened last week, and I should have gotten to it then. But, this works out since I can cover the ending (…?) too) Here is the AP article. If that’s dead, here’s a txt of it.

I guess it was a round last Monday when the teasers for the news let loose the following: “Activists in California are pushing to ban the sale of Oreos, and you’ll never guess why!!

Now in today’s f***ed up, uber-PC society, only one thought passed through my skull – RACISM! Has to be. Somebody, somewhere just got offended by “Oreo” cookies, I bet you anything; and so they, on “behalf” of millions of people who had no idea or cared that they were being insulted, would collect billions and stop this cretin of a cookie icon from spreading it’s word of hate.

Well, when I heard what the story was actually about, I was relieved… not happy or elated, but slightly assuaged that we as a people haven’t gone that far… yet.

However it is still preposterous to sue because it has trans fat. That’s the bad-for-you-but-makes-everything-all-better fat; that’s why you can lick the cream off an Oreo easier than say, a Hydrox.

Something like this is not a court issue; it’s a home issue, much like that whole “McDonald’s kills” debacle (read my commentary). Parents have got to be the ones to slap them devil cookies from their kid’s stubby fingers!

Thankfully the suit isn’t going anywhere: “A lawyer who generated international publicity by seeking to ban Oreo cookies in California said on Thursday he would withdraw his suit, explaining the news coverage had made people aware of the health risks of eating one of America’s favorite snacks.” (Reuters)

Sure the coverage has made people aware, but do they care? I don’t. I take the classic “I’m going to die one way or another,” look on this. Sure I could have a heart attack after a few cookies and a glass of milk, but I could also choke on a carrot. Don’t get me wrong, I love carrots; however, I’d rather have a chocolate aftertaste in my mouth for eternity than be an orange ghost.

The World’s Great Artillery

“Now, as then, guns are a way of putting serious combat power on the battlefield in a decisive fashion. A thousand years ago, that meant using ‘tension’ artillery to fling into or over the walls of fortifications or into massed formations of infantry. It was an efficient method of killing people and destroying things quickly and in large quantity. That’s what war is about – making things simply too difficult for the other side to operate and imposing you will on them…”

-Hans Halberstadt

And this book is about the development of the weapons systems which do just that, help one side to dominate the battlefield and defeat the opposition.

Beginning with a general overview of what the terms cannon, howitzer, and mortar are, and yes there are differences, Halberstadt covers the past 702 or so years of artillery evolution. One of the first pieces covered is the Bombard, an iron tube with a 7.8inch bore which, was tied to a chassis that looks like it was carved out of 2x4s with all the grace of a lop sided chimp with the hick-ups. It did however, play the role of a howitzer-mortar fairly efficiently for the Italians, hurling 220lb stones approximately 300 yards.

Further along, an entire chapter is devoted to the U.S. Civil War and the artillery developments of that time. One example would be 14pdr (pdr = pounder; cannons were designated by the weight of their projectiles at this period, not by bore diameter) James Rifle. This was one of the first rifled artillery pieces, and an odd one, being cast of bronze. For those of you not savvy with your metals, the bronze barrels had an annoying habit of eroding, a problem, which cast iron and later steel barreled guns were not as prone to. It did, however manage to fling lead a good 1700 yards with a 12 oz powder charge and 5 degrees of elevation.

Chapters 3-5 cover the more modern weapons systems of the 20th Century. Starting with Chapter 3, which covers from the year 1900 to just after the First World War, the famous names in cannon history start popping up. One example from the early part of the last 100 years if the French 75mm, or the M1897 75mm, as the frogs call it. It was probably the first really modern gun of the era, using a hydro-pneumatic recoil system, instead of just allowing the gun to move rewards several feet and then move it back into battery. The gun had a 2.95″ bore and lobbed shells as far as 9,295 yards.

Chapter 4 examines the weapons systems of World War II, predominantly. This chapter covers the standard artillery concept, as well as other systems, such as the self-propelled artillery systems, rockets and the gargantuan mortars employed by the Soviet Union. One such system was the British Sexton, a 25pdr cannon (with a bore of 3.45″) attached to a Canadian tank chassis. It could lob its projectiles 13,400yds and was finally relegated to obsolescence by the smaller nation of the world in 1980.

Chapter 5 covers the pleasantries, which were devised to be exchanged during the past 60 years of U.S. – Soviet relations. One of the odder self-propelled weapons to come out at the end of that era was the DANA. A wheeled (not tracked) self-propelled howitzer, it made its debut in the former country of Czechoslovakia, in 1980. It was capable of up to 50mph on the open road, and flung the Warsaw Pact standard 152mm (6″) projectile.

The final chapter in the book covers the modern world’s marvels of engineering. Along with the typical big shots (no pun intended) of artillery development (U.S., U.K., Russia, Germany, etc.) some light it also shed on the new comers to the field. South Africa for example, has produced, for its own consumption, forty-three LIW-G6s. The G-6 is another wheeled (no, still not tracked) self-propelled designs. It lobs a 155mm (6.1″) projectile 31 miles, with a rocket-assisted shell design, and is capable of 56mph on paved roadways.

Now, for the review part of this creative writing assignment, the book is easily found at your local Barnes and Noble, which is of course a big plus. Halberstadt is easy to read and digest and sheds light on many weapons designs of both the obsolete and current (state of the art, even). Thus, because of its informative, yet straightforward style I give it the coveted 6 object of some nature out of a total 6 thing-a-ma-bobs attainable. The perfect score, for the perfect bedtime read.

The In-Laws (2003)

It was a rainy day, and my intention was to see Finding Nemo. But the facts of it just premiered and New York’s high kiddy-to-person ratio, I went to see The In-Laws, the remake of the 1979 Peter Falk/Alan Arkin classic.

And I am glad that I did.

And unfortunately, having not seen the original The In-Laws, I can’t make any nit-picky comparisons… but here’s what I can say:

The premise is simple enough… there’s a wedding in four days, two sets of parents that have not met yet, and one rogue nuclear sub. Now, I’m not one to throw around the phrase “and wackiness ensues,” but when Albert Brooks and Michael Douglass are the respective fathers, I guess I can make an exception just this once…

Put the aforementioned together, AND WACKINESS ENSUES. WACKINESS I TELLS YA.

Without giving too much away (not that there is much to give, but…), Douglass plays a CIA agent in deep cover, about to bust a world-class smuggler; a role that can be likened too his Romancing the Stone days – the super-cool-yet-no-better-than-us adventurer.

Brooks plays a neurotic, obsessive-compulsive foot doctor who happens across Douglass’ secret identity, and manages to get caught up in the middle of the whole thing (quite nicely I might add). Once noted for turning down When Harry Met Sally because it was too much like a Woody Allan script, Brooks nails the part of a spastic basket case.

Brooks and Douglass definitely work well together, or if not, they fake it really well on screen. Hollywood would do well to put these two heavy hitters together again in the future.

Ryan Reynolds (Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place) plays Douglass’ character’s son, should also be mentioned. His facial reactions were great; I just wished he had more lines, because Reynolds can do funny.

The soundtrack rocks. A good choice of songs all around tat fit the scenes. However, the movie looses points due to the fact that while all other songs were used very loudly during action sequences, Electric Light Orchestra’s “Don’t Bring Me Down” was near muted and used during a drunken bachelorette party. I guess I can’t complain too much, they did use an ELO song after all.

Verdict of this vague review:

The In-Laws is a slapstick buddy comedy, nothing more. It’s there to give you a chuckle on a miserable day. And this more than does the trick. Cinematography was decent and the writing was ok.

I’m going to give The In-Laws (2003) 4 out of 6 wheels of cheddar. Cheesy, but in a good way. (note – score does not reflect the ELO penalty).

It’s an OK movie… I would say rent it, or buy it pre-owned when it comes out. If you happen to get shut out of another film in the theaters, or are adept at hopping, then by all means see it in your local movie house.