Environmentalists Get Angry Over Climategate Scandal

According to Fox News:

“Building the case for a brand new jobs-creation bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says most Americans would not mind inflating the already-gaping deficit in exchange for more jobs.”

Dear Nancy,

I’m sure that Americans without jobs would, but how about the Americans who still have jobs (and therefor will have to pay the bill), houses, cars, bills of their own, kids to raise?

It’s always been an obligation of society to help those who are in need.  The government spending money to create jobs is the worst possible cure.  In fact it’s not a cure at all, it’s a shot of morphine.

How about improving the climate for private industry job creation?  You know, the people in this country who actually create wealth.  That’s where you improve something and make it more valuable to your customers, so you both benefit.  The people who create the wealth that is taxed to fund government programs.

Folks, this is just a continuation of the arrogant, aggressive, militant liberal socialism I wrote about in yesterday’s piece on Ed Begley.  I am so looking forward to three more years of this.  I can’t wait to see what’s left of the country in ‘12.  Ha!Ha!

G’day, all, and may God continue to bless America.

Well, the open mic comes as we prepare to take a couple days for Thanksgiving. I will be taking some time off the blog as well. There will be no post on the night of Thanksgiving and I will do a guest commentary if I have one on Friday night, but if I don’t have a guest commentary submitted that night I will do either an open mic or not have an article. As many of you know, Friday begins my season of madness that lasts through Christmas. I will post as often as I am able, but there may be some nights with very little. I appreciate everyone understanding, as the season really is pure madness for me. The last couple days have been good conversations, but I do have to say that I am missing JAC and BF (Hope you feel better my pirate friend), especially on that first post this week about the path forward. I may have to rehash that article again later so that they can participate. I think we need to begin formulating a plan for what we can do. Tonight’s open mic has some good stuff, so I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say.

Perhaps Ed Begley (who makes his living by inducing others to consume massive amounts of energy) only gets this way with people who disagree with him:

http://video.foxnews.com/11904096/the-science-is-very-clear

But just in case, after Jonestown, there is any lack of awareness of the occult violence of liberalism, just check out the video.  Liberal violence is well documented, though.  Every society that has tried to implement liberal socialism has had to resort to coercion.  So let’s go on to Begley’s sophomoric arguments.

He objected to a physics professor voicing an opinion regarding global warming.  Guess what, Ed, all the “science” that climate “scientists” claim ownership of comes from physics.  The difference is that physics does not respond to politics and climate science does.  Begley, you are an overeducated moron.  I would take the opinion of a legitimate physicists over that of a “climate scientist” any day, any time, on any subject.  Physicists do math, climate scientists do spin.

And then regarding your comment to Stewart Varney that “You don’t get to spoil the commons”.  Begley, just another confirmation that you have received education that far exceeds your intelligence.  When Hardin described the Tragedy of the Commons in 1968, he thereby clearly explained the reason that liberal socialism is bound to fail.  ”The Commons” will always be spoiled, even Nazi Germany and Communist Russia with their coercive secret police apparatus could not prevent it.  Well, Ed, maybe what’s needed to make the liberal socialist “Commons” work is simply more of your anger and violence.

Congratulations, Ed Begley, you refresh the memory of the lesson that Jim Jones taught us back in 1978.  Every generation needs to be reminded.  Liberal socialism equals violence and coercion.  You’ve done your duty.

G’nite all, and may God continue to bless America.

PS: Ed, peer reviewed journals are and will remain only the beginning.  Watch “Longitude” (a truly worthwhile piece of media) to see how little changes regarding the corruption of the scientific establishment.  If you get all your information from peer reviewed journals, you are either wrong or uninformed a lot of the time.  The contradictions inherent to social liberalism in the United States are mind boggling and do result in the most amazing moral convolutions.

“It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don’t really know what the truth is. I don’t suppose anybody will ever really know.”
~~Juror #8

For some men, it’s disturbingly simple to dismiss the full, oppressive weight a possibly innocent/possibly guilty defendant’s fate in the pursuit of fast, easy Jiffy Lube justice. Juror #8 (Henry Fonda), however, finds himself unwilling and unable to unload a “guilty” verdict because he’s got a pair of Yankees tickets in his pocket or dinner congealing on the table at home. His firm refusal to take facts at face value makes him the unwelcome voice of reason in Sidney Lumet’s taut, phenomenally acted “12 Angry Men,” a courtroom thriller that zeroes in on the ways petty grudges and prejudice cloud human judgment.

Perhaps, though, “courtroom thriller” isn’t quite the right phrase to describe “12 Angry Men,” since playwright/scriptwriter Reginald Rose sets nearly all the action outside the courtroom and inside the jury’s quarters.  This is a brilliantly strategic move, since it narrows our focus and enhances the claustrophobic atmosphere, forcing us inside a small, cramped, sweaty room bursting with big egos, smart mouths and short, explosive tempers. These close quarters offer unusually, and often uncomfortably, intimate glimpses into the jurors’ lives — their professions, their children, even their thoughts, beliefs, hangups. Director Sidney Lumet’s close camera angles enhance the tension immeasurably, literally backing his actors (and us) into corners that offer no escape route. Lumet, it seems, understands that true human nature reveals itself best when suffocated by four walls.

Indeed, “12 Angry Men” is as much a character study as it is a legal procedural, and it’s a credit to the actors that there are no throwaway characters or forgettable ones. Their personalities emerge slowly inside the jury room, where they sit deliberating what seems to be a slam-dunk case: a disadvantaged teen (John Savoca) is accused of murdering his father. There are two witnesses, a knife wiped clean of fingerprints. The teen has an alibi he can’t back up with details, a long rap sheet and a volatile relationship with his old man. Then the 12-man jury retires to deliberate, and things get heated. Juror 8 dissents immediately, urging his peers to question the case’s basis on circumstantial evidence. The remaining jurors, all convinced this young hood deserves the chair, include: 1 (Martin Balsam), the impatient foreman; 2 (John Fiedler), a shy but kind bank clerk; 3 (Lee J. Cobb), a belligerent, stubborn businessman with a runaway son; 4 (E.G. Marshall), a cool, impersonal stockbroker; 5 (Jack Klugman), who grew up in the same slums as the accused murderer; 6 (Edward Binns), a blue-collar man who abides his own moral code; 7 (Jack Warden), a slick, vain salesman; 9 (Joseph Sweeney), an elderly man who’s a keen observer of human behavior; confrontational bigot 10 (Ed Begley), a garage owner; 11 (George Voskovec), an immigrant who designs watches; and 12 (Robert Webber), a wishy-washy ad executive. Initially united in their commitment to quick Jiffy Lube justice, they resist Juror 8’s impassioned arguments until his logic starts to make too much sense to ignore. Slowly, very slowly, they all — excluding 3 and 10 — begin to listen, reason out the prosecution’s points. What’s more, they begin to care about what they’re doing more than what they’re missing by sitting in the jury chambers.

If this exposition makes ”12 Angry Men” sound like a film that’s all talk and no action, that’s because it is. But with acting this accomplished and a script this polished, that’s hardly a criticism. Lumet’s direction is virtually perfect, both invasive and remarkably detached; his camera becomes a character itself, elevating the tension, then abating it, pushing the actors into corners, then letting them wriggle free. This approach lets us know the characters, and it coaxes, too, amazing and emotional performances from each of the 12 actors. Voskovec and Fiedler offer light comic relief, while Sweeney finds an unexpected shrewdness in elderly Juror 9. Fonda underplays Juror 8 to great effect, never overacting or aiming for melodrama. But nobody matches Cobb in terms of purely frightening intensity; as Juror 3, he holds back nothing. He lets us feel the knife twist of his disappointment — in his son, in himself. He is the voice that reminds us that life renders objectivity impossible.

Hugo’s again. It’s the new Aroma. I saw Ed Begley Jr.

Respirando e transpirando cinema noir.

Max Reinhardt was the most tremendous and important person to have ever influenced my career and my work. - Bob Ryan provando que Reinhardt não fora apenas um dos pais do teatro moderno e do cinema alemão, mas dele também.
Sem Reinhardt não existiria Lang, Murnau, Lubitsch e outros desocupados, por consequência não existiria todo expressionismo alemão e cinema noir norte-americano. Sem Reinhardt não haveria o curso de teatro que fundou nos EUA, Ryan não teria encontrado um rumo para sua vida neste mesmo curso e todos perderíamos um ator estupendo imortalizando uma quantidade incalculável de grandes cenas do cinema, boa parte delas fazendo parte daquele mesmo cinema noir supracitado.
Mas Ryan era diferente de outros ícones noir, gente como Bogart, Ladd, Lancaster e Mitchum possuíam um tipo de aura heróica e dignidade que prevalecia mesmo nos mais profundos esgotos, Ryan não, ele ia mesmo fundo na podridão humana, se mesclamava na escória, rastejava nos dejetos e é aí que entra a influência de Reinhardt, ao abster-se da vaidade do astro de cinema para dar vazão à necessidade do ator, numa quase-versão sexy de Peter Lorre. Robert Ryan é pulp cinema em suor, sangue, penumbra, músculos, pistolas, cigarros e câncer no pulmão.

RR tem tanto filme excelente no currículo que dá impinge pensar em fazer um top de sua filmografia.

1- Meu Ódio Será Tua Herança (The Wild Bunch, Sam Peckinpah, 1969)

2- Cinzas que Queimam (On Dangerous Ground, Nicholas Ray/Ida Lupino, 1952)

3- Punhos de Campeão (The Set-Up, Robert Wise, 1949)

4- A Quadrilha Maldita (Day of the Outlaw, André De Toth, 1959)

5- Casa de Bambu (House of Bamboo, Samuel Fuller, 1955)

6- Homens em Fúria (Odds Against Tomorrow, Robert Wise, 1959)

7 -O Preço de um Homem (The Naked Spur, Anthony Mann, 1953)

8- Rancor (Crossfire, Edward Dmytryk, 1947)

9- O Menino dos Cabelos Verdes (The Boy With Green Hair, Joseph Losey, 1948)

10- O Homem que Surgiu de Repente (La Course du Lièvre à Travers les Champs, René Clement, 1972)

11- Ato de Violência (Act of Violence, Fred Zinnemann, 1948)

12- Os Que Sabem Morrer (Men in War, Anthony Mann, 1957)

Nem só de sombras viveu um dos maiores motherfuckers do cinema, mais do que noir, Robert Ryan exalava testosterona. Desde os anos 40 Mr Ryan poderia entrar em qualquer antologia de cinema-de-macho, o homem trabalhou com Peckinpah, Fuller, Aldrich, Walsh, Boetticher, Winner, Frankenheimer, Anthony Mann, John Flynn e Sturges – ele também trabalhou com o resto da galera sem talento do outro lado como Lang, Tourneur, Losey, Ray, Ophuls, Lupino, Renoir, mas isso não tem a mínima importância. O que quero mesmo dizer é que o senhor Ryan tem todo direito de estar naquele seleto hall onde estão inclusos Clint Eastwood e Charles Bronson, com a diferença que Bob Ryan já era motherfucker antes que esse povo tivesse sonhado em ser tal coisa.
Apesar de RR ter sido separado de seu siamês Sterling Hayden logo após o nascimento, dessa galera macho-pra-dedéu o único ator páreo para ele no cinema americano era Lee Marvin – foram dois dos mais intensos, versáteis e talentosos atores evindeciados no pós-guerra – vai ver por isso fizeram quatro filmes juntos e Bloody Sam queria Marvin ao lado dele no Wild Bunch, em vez disso Marvin foi cantar com o Eastwood naquele outro filme… A verdade é que o duo Marvin-Ryan formam uma espécie de objeto transitório de anti-heróis com testosterona acima da média entre a geração Cagney-Bogart para o ciclo Eastwood-Bronson.

Eu sei que meus bíceps são irresistíveis, mas tenha respeito, Bronson!

Top “resto”:

13- Coração Prisioneiro (Caught, Max Ophüls/Robert Aldrich, 1949)
14- Só a Muher Peca (Clash by Night, Fritz Lang, 1952)
15- Os Doze Condenados (The Dirty Dozen, Robert Aldrich, 1967)
16- A Mulher Desejada (The Woman on the Beach, Jean Renoir, 1947)
17- O Mais Longo dos Dias (The Longest Day, Ken Annakin/Andrew Marton/Bernhard Wicki, 1962)
18- A Quadrilha (The Outfit, John Flynn, 1973)
19- Expresso Para Berlim (Berlin Express, Jacques Tourneur, 1948)
20- Billy Budd – O Vingador dos Mares (Peter Ustinov, 1962)
21- Rastros do Inferno (Inferno, Roy Ward Baker, 1953)
22- Conspiração do Silêncio (Bad Day at Black Rock, John Sturges, 1955)
23- The Iceman Cometh (John Frankenheimer, 1973)
24- Rei dos Reis (King of Kings, Nicholas Ray, 1961)
25- Uma Batalha no Inferno (Battle of the Bulge, Ken Annakin, 1965)
26- Os Profissionais (The Professionals, Richard Brooks, 1966)
27- Nas Garras da Ambição (The Tall Men, Raoul Walsh, 1955)
28- O Pequeno Rincão de Deus (God’s Little Acre, Anthony Mann, 1958)
29- A Batalha de Anzio (Lo Sbarco di Anzio, Duilio Coletti/Edward Dmytryk, 1968)
30- À Borda da Morte (The Proud Ones, Robert D. Webb, 1956)
31- Os Bravos Não se Rendem (Custer of the West, Robert Siodmak, 1967)
32- A Hora da Pistola (Hour of the Gun, John Sturges, 1967)
33- A Estrada Dos Homens Sem Lei (The Racket, John Cromwell/Nicholas Ray/Mel Ferrer, 1951)
34- Alma Sem Pudor (Born to Be Bad, Nicholas Ray, 1950)35- Mulheres de Ninguém (Tender Comrade, Edward Dmytryk, 1943)
36- Império do Pavor (Horizons West, Budd Boetticher, 1952)
37- O Assassinato de um Presidente (Executive Action, David Miller, 1973)
38- De Volta da Eternidade (Back from Eternity, John Farrow, 1956)
39- Escravo de Si Mesmo (Beware, My Lovely, Harry Horner, 1952)
40- Lonelyhearts (Vincent J. Donehue, 1958)
41- Tudo Por Ti (The Sky’s the Limit, Edward H. Griffith, 1943)
42- A Guerra Secreta (The Dirty Game, Christian-Jaque/Klingler/Lizzani/Terence Young, 1965)
43- O Homem da Lei (Lawman, Michael Winner, 1971)
44- Cidade Abaixo do Mar (City Beneath of Sea, Budd Boetticher, 1953)
45- Selvas Indomáveis (Escape to Burma, Allan Dwan, 1955)
46- O Melhor dos Homens Maus (The Best of the Badmen, William D. Russell, 1951)
47- Cada Vida… Seu Destino (The Secret Fury, Mel Ferrer, 1950)
48- Caçada ao Pistoleiro Escondido (Un Minuto per Pregare un Instante per Morire, Giraldi, 1968)
49- Horizonte de Glórias (Flying Leathernecks, Nicholas Ray, 1951)
50- A Volta dos Homens Maus (Return of the Bad Men, Ray Enright, 1948)
51- Capitão Nemo e a Cidade Submarina (Captain Nemo and the Underwater City, J. Hill, 1969)
52- Bombardeio (Bombardier, Richard Wallace/Lambert Hillyer, 1943)
53- Sem Deus e Sem Lei/O Passo do Ódio (Trail Street, Ray Enright, 1947)
54- Os Homens da sua Vida (Her Twelve Men, Robert Z. Leonard, 1954)
55- Marine Raiders (Harold D. Schuster, 1944)
56- Nuvens de Tempestade (The Woman on Pier 13/I Married a Communist, R. Stevenson, 1949)

Nota 1: Ninguém chuta a bunda de Deke Thornton, mas se não fosse pelo final, On Dangerous Ground seria talvez o primeiro dessa lista. O filme de  Ray sofreu exatamente a mesma coisa que The Magnificent Ambersons na década anterior, onde o final original foi refeito porque o estúdio assim quis e apesar do final imposto não ser uma tragédia, a situação original desejada por Ray era amplamente superior. Robert Ryan foi queridinho dos filmes B durante o reinado de terror de Howard Hughes na RKO, um bom motivo para que ele e Nicholas Ray se tornassem tão unidos no período, trabalhando juntos em quatro filmes seguidos (mais tarde tiveram um quinto filho temporão) – enquanto Hughes entrava de cabeça no macartismo, Ryan e Ray batiam o pé como notórios liberais, o que gerou todo aquele entrevero com John Wayne durante as filmagens de Flying Leathernecks, um filme cujo conteúdo belicista e de direita nada tinha a ver com suas visões.

Nota 2: Só as participações com no mínimo uma fala entraram no top, filme com participação ínfima deixei de fora, como é o caso de sua estréia em O Castelo Sinistro (The Ghost Breakers, George Marshall, 1940) onde fez figuração carregando uma maca (é, eu reconheço alguém com dois segundos em cena e praticamente de costas)Nota 2: O maior choque que tive seguindo a carreira de Ryan foi quando assisti O Pequeno Rincão de Deus (God’s Little Acre, Anthony Mann, 1958) foi alí que me dei conta que estava diante de um dos maiores atores do mundo. Quando vi a cena em que sua personagem resolve raptar um albino não sabia se gritava, gargalhava ou chorava de emoção por estar diante de um gênio em sua arte. Mann havia começado essa tranformação de Ryan em Zé Buscapé já em O Preço de um Homem (The Naked Spur, 1953), onde em meio a uma atmosfera leoniana Ryan praticamente cria o pai do Tuco de Três Homens em Conflito.

Nota 3: O top é por qualidade geral dos filmes, mas se fosse eleger as 12 melhores atuações de RR, seriam estas: Odds Against Tomorrow, Billy Budd, Caught, God’s Little Acre, Custer of the West, Clash by Night, The Iceman Cometh, The Set-Up, Born to Be Bad, The Naked Spur, Inferno e On Dangerous Ground.

Nota 4: Presumo que o “Patch Pack” tinha uma queda pelo senhor Ryan – Walsh, Ray, De Toth e Lang trabalharam com ele, o único maldito de tapa-olho com quem não trabalhou foi o John Ford.

Nota 5: É fato – Ryan tem os melhores bíceps e tenho dito. É por isso que recomendo com veemência filmes em que aparece sem camisa ou de camiseta, também por isso Ed Dmytryk disse certa vez: Bob hit like a mule.

Nota 6: A minha “fase Jeff Bridges” do último semestre me levou, por consequência, a ver alguns filmes onde Robert Ryan esteve presente. JB tem RR como ator favorito e impusionou-me a ver o porquê foi tão importante como muso inspirador, além do fato de dois dos últimos filmes com Ryan terem sido também dois dos primeiros filmes com a presença de Bridges. Só depois de ter trabalhado ao lado de Ryan, Lee Marvin e Fredric March em The Iceman Cometh (John Frankenheimer, 1973) é que JB resolveu ser ator de verdade, coisa que até então ele só levara na brincadeira, tamanho o peso que tais homens tinham em cena, algo fácil de se perceber já que Ryan e Marvin jogam ping-pong com JB naquele filme, onde o então guri fica na função de bolinha. Também pudera, The Iceman Cometh é o último momento de Ryan no cinema, o câncer em estado bastante avançado acabou tornando seu personagem ainda mais melancólico do que dramaticamente já era e presumo que nenhum outro ator de qualquer montagem da peça de Eugene O’Neill tenha sido mais efetivo durante o final do terceiro ato.

Nota 7: Robert Ryan foi o único ator que vi eclipsando James Mason. Vi Mason de igual para igual com Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers e John Gielgud, mas a única presença que esteve um degrau acima de Mason numa cena foi o Robert Ryan em Caught – *Medo. Em compensação o Nemo de Ryan não chega aos pés do de Mason.

Você é fodão, mas eu sou mais alto. mimimi

Hughes called Ryan in and said “It’s okay if you play me, I don’t want them to put some other actor in there” – Robert Parrish, então editor de Caught (Max Ophüls, 1949) sobre o fato de Howard Hughes achar que apenas Robert Ryan seria digno de interpretá-lo - como se já não fosse suficientemente estranho o patrão deixar que um personagem pouco lisongeiro fosse inspirado nele.

Nota final: Hoje comemora-se cem anos do nascimento de RR, oras.

*Da série: Este post foi programado, eu não estou aqui!

Suppose that those whom you loved most in the world were slated to be horribly tortured and brutally killed.  Now suppose that all you have to do to stop this hideous occurrence is to stop eating meat.  Would you do it?

Al Gore claims we are all going to die from Global Warming or Climate Change.  The very organizations that Al Gore relies on for this information say that eating meat is 20 times more harmful than driving a car. Al Gore refuses to become a vegetarian and still drives a car.  Al Gore house uses 20 times the energy yours does.  If Al Gore doesn’t believe why should you?

Glenn Beck and PETA say Al Gore MUST stop eating meat.

Stop the meat Al!

Beating the meat out of you

Until Al Gore reduces his Carbon Foot Print by a factor of 20, don’t believe his hype.

…I felt a disturbance in the force. It was as though the flatulence of millions of cows grew still. Either that or Rush Limbaugh is on vacation….

Oh yeah, and wouldn’t be nice if that hypocrite Al Gore got a dose of his own medicine. Since Al Gore will never go green on his own, Ed Begley should be dispatched on a secret, undercover search and destroy mission into the Gore household.

Eg Begley is already a well honed instrument of ecological change who could ferret out each and every energy wasting practice in the millionaire Al Gore household and replace the wasteful appliances with green ones. Heck, Begley could even supervise the placement of a  farm of solar panels large enough to get Gore household off the grid.

It’s way to much to ask but just imagine if Albert Gore ceased to be the world’s largest hypocrite and hence forth flew only on green planes, rode only in green cars and spoke only into green microphones.

In my opinion , when a professional clown is more ecologically pure than Al Gore you have to conclude Al Gore is lying. I just watched a bit of video on how a popular late night, stand up comedian is taking his studio off the grid. He had solar collectors and wind turbines–the works. What does Global Warming Hoax Al Gore do about his huge ecological foot print? Gore creates some shell company and plays fast and loose with carbon credits. Pocketing the money. This is an IQ test folks. Those of you are buying the crap Al Gore is selling are testing positive for stupidity. If your truly believed in Global warming and you were a millionaire like Al Gore, wouldn’t you move heaven and earth to get off the grid. First because as an ecologically pure person you believe it’s the right thing to do. Second because you want to show the impure they can do it to.

Trading carbon credits is exactly what a cynical person who does not believe would do. Futhermore, if the true purpose of the Global warming hoax is to redistribute income, rather than to clean up the environment, trading carbon credits is the kind of scheme you would come up with.

The wealthy who truly believe have green limos, green jets, and green houses. They can afford these things and if they are not just simply communists bent on the destruction of capitalism, they know a green economy requires a kick-start that only the wealthy by example can give.

A hamburger is worse than a truck

Save the Cow Farts!!!

Creating Wealth

Wishing Well

Constellation of Idiots

Whose fault is it?

Post Consumerism

How to Plunder a Nation

Selling Zero

The Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington

Dictionary of Dreams

It is better to be Drunk than Wasted

Online Job Search

Government Work

Job Search

Job Search for the Older Worker

Dificilmente um filme antigo chama atenção daqueles que gostam superficialmente de cinema, ainda mais se for um filme em preto e branco, como é o caso dessa jóia impactante dirigida por Sidney Lumet. Contando com um elenco composto por Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley e Jack Klugman, que são responsáveis por excelentes atuações de personagens cheios de detalhes, que transformam este filme em algo absorvente, tenso e excitante.

Primeiramente somos apresentados a um júri composto por dozes jurados, onde onze deles estão convencidos que o réu é culpado por assassinato e apenas um sustenta a hipótese de sua inocência. Em um caso em que há provas avassaladoras contra um adolescente acusado de matar o pai, este único jurado (Davis, interpretado por Henry Fonda) tenta fazer com que os outros cheguem à sua conclusão.

Todas as ações acontecem dentro de uma única sala, com exceção da primeira e da última cena, que se passam no tribunal e na saída do mesmo, respectivamente. È incrível como Lumet consegue fazer um filme de 96 minutos tão parado, sem torná-lo monótono em nenhum momento sequer. 12 Homens e Uma Sentença é um drama forte, impregnado de suspense, bem agradável de ser visto, podendo causar sensações de emoção até aos mais insensíveis.

Esta ótima produção além de um elenco de astros recebeu quatro indicações ao Oscar, incluindo Melhor Filme (1957). Conta também com um remake para TV, de 1997 dirigido por William Friedkin e com um excelente elenco. Recomendo que vejam as duas versões para que visualizem as formas diferentes de ver uma mesma coisa, e ainda fazer um comparativo da evolução técnica da sétima arte.

O filme põe em questão os determinantes sociais, trazendo à tona a discussão de temas fortes e polêmicos, que podem gerar perdas irreparáveis e erros fatais, entre esses temas facilmente se nota o preconceito e o apego indevido ao falível poder determinante do ambiente e da classe social. É absolutamente desprezível tentar inferir algo que não se analisa, simplesmente por achar coisas pessoais (e supérfluas) mais importantes que a vida de outra pessoa. O fato mais interessante é que o filme mostra que muitas vezes a dúvida pode ser mais eficaz e válida que a certeza.

Trailer:

Yes, today is actor and environmental activist Ed Begley’s 60th birthday. I’d normally have no reason to know that (or care), except for this unexpected Penn State connection: Ed Begley is helping Penn State’s Solar Decathlon team in its quest to win a national competition for creating the best “green” home.

According to this story on Treehugger.com, Begley will be in Happy Valley next week as the invited guest of the University’s Solar Decathlon team. The team is set to host a going-away open house on Friday, Sept. 25, as the kick-off for the team’s trip to Washington D.C., where its “Natural Fusion” house will compete for national honors in October.

Our editor, Tina Hay, went up to the still-in-progress dwelling a few days ago and took some photos. Here’s a bit of perspective:

And here’s a couple of students working on the deck:

If they’re looking for another deck to build after this is over, I’d be happy to offer them a project.

For more on Penn State’s Natural Fusion house, check this link — and this one, for details on their student club, Penn State Engineers for a Sustainable World.

Ryan Jones, senior editor

From the Grinning Planet, a group that tries to be fair and be environmental stewards, this (edited for length and content) article.

“DO AS I SAY,” NOT AS I DOO-DOO
Environmental Hypocrites on the Left

Lear Jet Flying High and Leaving a Huge Carbon Footprint

First we had “limousine liberals” or “Lear Jet Liberals”—defined as people who claimed to be champions of the poor but who themselves led lifestyles of wealth and luxury and were generally disengaged from the activities and consequences of their proposed solutions. Then we had “Lexus liberals”—members of the upper-middle class who espoused left-leaning opinions about how society should solve its problems while they themselves cloistered in suburban McMansions. Both phrases serve as clever verbal shorthand to describe positions thought to be hypocritical.

More recently emerged is the concept of “environmental hypocrites.” The phrases “limousine liberals” and “Lexus liberals” already implied “environmental hypocrites”—the implication being that many environmentalists preach clean energy, simple living, and use of mass transportation while engaging in none of those things. However, “environmental hypocrite” is a narrower charge that excludes non-environmental social issues such as low-income housing, worker rights, and gun control.

Environmental Hypocrites on the Left?

The subject of environmental hypocrisy made an appearance on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes show a few years back. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., one of the country’s most prominent environmentalists, came on the show and spoke in support of high mileage vehicles but then was forced to admit that he himself sometimes travels on a personal jet—the single most wasteful mode of transport on the planet.

More recently, Al Gore has come under legitimate attack for encouraging the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (lest we suffer the perils of global warming), while his family’s home is sucking down 20 times more electricity than the average American home. A Gore spokesperson points out that Mr. Gore buys green power and carbon offsets, so in theory he is not adding to the greenhouse-gas problem he warns us of. But the reported total level of his home’s energy use is very high in absolute terms. Global warming is a problem that will largely have to be solved through energy conservation, and Mr. Gore is not setting a good example in that regard.

We at Wizetrize are not supporters of “Cap and Trade”, “Carbon Credits” or “Offsets” for one reason.  It is smoke and mirrors.  If put like this, would you support it?  A gang of thugs comes and punches you and your family at you family’s family reunion.  They hit you all in the faces giving you black eyes, bloody noses or perhaps evn knock out a tooth.  They hit everyone, even the women, children and elders.  But to “offset” their malfeasance they buy “peace credits” from a church group down the street that never punches anyone and promotes peace.  OK, would that make it any better to be punched?  Of course not!  It would be ridiculous to think this is even an option.  But we pretend that it is okay for one group produce smoke and another use mirrors and we call it environmentally friendly and responsible.  As John Stossel says, Give me a break!

Do these illustrations make Kennedy and Gore environmental hypocrites? Yeah, to some extent.

Gore and Kennedy are both theoretically doing good work on behalf of the environment—they rank in the Top 10 of the world’s most effective environmental “advocates”.  But to be a high-profile environmentalist and not fully walk the talk—even if only in terms of the perception they create—is hugely problematic if not hypocritical.  The public does not like hypocrites, environmental or otherwise, and giving skeptics of the benefits of environmental stewardship the opportunity to throw hypocritical mud on worthy arguments reduces the power of the message and reasoned actions. For some in the audience, these glaring negatives weigh heavily against the positive work and arguements good stewards do and make, respectively.

Is it possible to be a high-profile environmentalist and live a truly environmentally friendly life? Sure. Hollywood actor Ed Begley, Jr., does it. He encourages everyone to reduce energy use, to install sustainable energy technologies like solar panels, to recycle, and to use alternate transportation. He himself lives in a modest two-bedroom house—unheard of among Hollywood elitists—and he does all of the eco-friendly things he promotes to others. His house is covered in solar panels, he has a bicycle-powered toaster, and a solar backpack recharges his cell phone. He uses only compact fluorescent bulbs. He recycles relentlessly. He has an electric vehicle and a Prius but still prefers to walk, ride his bike, or take public transportation to many of his destinations—all modes of travel that are even more eco-friendly than his already green vehicles.

Ed Begley’s home is not particularly beautiful as defined by the standards of the typical Hollywood elitist, and his lifestyle is not notably elegant. But his home is very functional and his way of living is very efficient. He shuns ego-driven luxury and personal convenience, and he does more than most people—big “stars” or hoi polloi politicians—to strive for a clean environment and a sustainable future. He’s as far from being an environmental hypocrite as one can get.  And we at Wizetrize are huge fans of Ed (for the most part).

Environmental Hypocrites … Over the Rooftops and Houses

Al Gore is not the only environmentalist with a cushy home. CEOs of environmental groups often times “live big” too. Nature Conservancy President Steven J. McCormick caught some flack a few years back for his mini-mansion (as well as his $420,000+ compensation package).

Mansions are basically extra-large houses, and they’re almost always resource hogs:

• They are usually sited on large amounts of land (which could otherwise have been kept as natural habitat).
• They require huge amounts of natural resources for construction.
• They use large amounts of energy on a day-to-day basis.

To avoid the environmental hypocrite label, any mansion-dwelling eco-bigwigs out there are well advised to downsize and get with their own program.  But alas, many are people who are from the “do as I say, not as I do” camp.

Environmental activists rightfully come under fire for jetting around the world to campaign for environmental issues or attend conferences and soirees.  Often to give each other awards for being popular, political or famous.  It’s true that even flying coach on a modern, efficient passenger plane produces a lot of greenhouse gases per passenger mile. So, is it environmentally hypocritical to warn an audience of global warming dangers after having just flown 5,000 miles?  (Michael Moore leaves a huge carbon footprint.)

The answer in a moment. First we must point out two things.

• Environmentalists should be well aware of this sort of contradiction and strive to minimize their impact as they go about their activities and practice what they preach.  Unfortunately they are often clueless or could care less about their duplicity.
• By setting a true and honest example, environmental stewards will not be thought to be the frauds or the power grabbing or eco-mongerers and eco-profiteers that the zealots have shown themselves to be all too often.   Environmental Stewardship is opposed to Environmental Extremists and we need to make our case separately even if we share overlapping positives.

That said, we’d like to see more virtual and telecommuting conferences being held!

Are “We the People” Environmental Hypocrites?

What about average people who claim to be environmentalists? Are most of them environmental hypocrites? Let’s look at a hypothetical suburbanite—we’ll call her Dawn.

Dawn recycles religiously, buys organic food when she can, has compact fluorescent light bulbs  in most of her fixtures, and tries to keep environmental issues in mind. Thus, Dawn likes to think of herself as an environmentalist. Unfortunately, all is not green in the lives of Dawn and her husband, Al. Let’s take a look, because it is a challenge and sometimes we have to make decisions between two good things or what is in our best interest vs what others may tell us is in the best interest of the environment.

ITEM: Dawn and Al live in a large, 4,000-sqft, standard-equipment suburban home.
PROBLEM: It’s much more of an energy hog than an average-size US home.

ITEM:  Those compact flourescent lightbulbs carry potential problems.

PROBLEM:   Mercury dust inside those bulbs is a HAZMAT issue and a cancer causing agent.  The state of California warns people about tuna having .12 milligrams of mercury while the average compact flourescent lightbulb has 4 milligrams of mercury.  In other words, they are laced with mercury poisons and made in China.

ITEM: Because they’re very busy, they use a standard lawn service that keeps their lawn looking like nice and green.
PROBLEM: Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Al and Dawn, the company does this by regularly applying chemical fertilizers and pesticides. These chemicals can harm their children and dog, and some of the toxins will eventually run off into the nearest stream, harming aquatic life and degrading water supplies for people downstream in the watershed.  On the other hand, experts have proven that because we don’t use DDT to kill mosquitoes, millions of people have died from malaria as a result.  By having a green lawn, the most prolific producer of oxygen from plants, green plants benefit the planet.

Millions Die From Malaria Every Year

For Dawn and Al, like us it is a challenge to know what to do.  Get a low water toilet and have to flush twice seems to defeat the purpose.  But most of the time one flush will do, so there is a net benefit in reducing clean water consumption.  As Kermit the Frog famously said: “It isn’t easy being green.”  But it can be if we do things like use one towel all week and wash it in a full laundry load with a biodegradable detergent, rather than use one towel per day.

Here are some of the attributes of an EnergyStar-certified house that serves the environment well:

moderately sized;

• designed for passive solar heating (free energy from the sun);
• highly insulated walls, ceilings, and crawlspace;
• high efficiency windows;
• light-colored metal roof to reflect solar loading in the summer;
• double-celled insulating window shades;
• ground-connected heat pump for cooling and supplemental heating;
• whole-house fan;
• solar hot water, with insulating blanket on water tank;
• house designed so washing machine, sinks, and tubs are all near the centrally located water heater (to minimize heat loss in pipes);
• EnergyStar appliances, including a horizontal-axis washing machine (which uses much less energy and water);
• 4.2 kilowatts of solar panels, grid inserted;
• high-capacity rainwater harvesting system for gardening use.

Add to that the following practices in a household striving to be good environmental stewards:

• eat mainly organic food, support local food and farms, and try to eat only free-range animal products;
• use 100% natural and organic cleaning products and personal-care products;
• recycle to the extent possible in our locale.

Not everyone has circumstances that allow this level of eco-friendliness.  The economy must be supported to allow progress, essentially through capitalism (not “progressivism” – remember, Cancer is Progressive.  Termites are Progressive.  Lice are Progressive.  Epidemics are Progressive…so not all is progress in “progressivism.  Our point is that environmental stewards aren’t just a bunch of elite fuzzy-headed thinkers like environmentalists (extremist, zealot or “mainstream”) who would have you do something that they do not do themselves. There are many, many environmental stewards doing the same sorts of things we do or want to do—and more. It is often hard for environmentalists to be eco-warriors and not be an environmental hypocrites.  Environmental Stewardship is focus, intent and meaning without the corruption, fraud and hypocrisy.

Wrap-Up

So, not all is perfect in the world of those of us who strive for a cleaner environment. We’ll all keep trying to improve.  Small efforts multiplied by hundreds, thousand and millions can be of enormous benefit.  We want to be a million people holding candles to light the way, not the zealots burning milions of acres (accidentally on purpose) of forest land because they opposed clearing dead brush and undergrowth that became the starter fuel for a disaster.

Wow, standing room only at the Mar Vista, Wise-Water-Use-Expo Tuesday night!  Thank you Sherri Akers, Joseph Treves, and Mar Vista Community Council’s Green Commitee who presented an evening full of information that was everything BUT soggy!  I mean, take a moment to think about it… we would DIE without water!  So why aren’t we treating it like a precious commodity?  If you haven’t heard, we have a serious shortage of “potable”! 

Kevin O’Donnell of Thread Collaborative (and Al Gore’s “The Inconvenient Truth”) displayed embarassing charts on how USA consumes the most H2O, and OUR glamorous state uses more than Texas and Florida combined. Gulp!  This is mostly due to California’s livestock and argriculture. Sadly growers have limited water and are forced to cut trees and let crops die!  Do you want to eat guacamole with your chips?  Or be wasteful hosing off your driveway? 

If you see careless folks whose sprinklers are missing the yard and leaving a babbling brook down your boulevard… report them!  Okay fine, ask nicely a couple times, but if they insist on watering the concrete like a chia pet, then call 800-dial-DWP. 

Pamela at G3 Gardening encourages home-owners not to have lawns with greedy grass, but planting drought-tolerant “natives” instead. Especially in the front yard where it’s just for looks, and is costing too much money and precious resources to upkeep. Pamela also recommends investing about $300 to have your driveway “cut,”  creating ”permeable paving” so rain run-off doesn’t wash into the ocean. My favorite idea… edible gardens!  Put your water use to better use and grow your own food.  Check out Mar Vista’s Green Garden Showcase on YouTube.

Paula Daniels of Public Works (former President of “Heal the Bay”) promised a city program that trains gardeners how to plant & maintain drought tolerant landscapes. Fabulous idea!  They are the keepers of our parks and gardens, so certainly should be the champions of water conservation. I mean, who are the real city planners? 

Councilman Bill Rosendahl spoke about his garden. He has chickens!  He grows his own eggs! Chickens are scavengers and eat your compost which reduces waste!  He didn’t say much about being water-wise, but was entertaining nonetheless!  P.S. Don’t get Roosters, your neighbors will hate you.

Ed Begley Jr sprinkled us with some laughs. One philosophy he shared: “What’s as good as having a lot of money? Not needing a lot of money.”  Try to wash that one down without a glass of drought!  Ed Begley questions whether he is “green” or just a “cheap skate.”  The wise man grows his own food, saves water & resources, rides his bike, and eats low on the food chain… all “good for your bottom line.”

Questions and comments from the Mar Vista community touched on gray water systems, city cooperation with green building, and ‘de-salinization’.  Guess you had to be there.

Well don’t miss this Saturday’s “Go Solar” Neighborhood Mixer (July 25th, 6:00 to 9:00) at 12024 Venice Blvd.

Be well, be green (be water-wise) ~ Karen Nation

Outstanding film. Outstanding cast. Outstanding performances.

And, in the aftermath of the European Parliament elections at which two BNP candidates were elected as MEPs, this scene from Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men also provides a timely reminder of how best to deal with racists, bigots and prejudice.

Quite apart from the scene’s social commentary, it’s a wonderfully bitter and twisted, vitriolic performance from Ed Begley as the loud-mouthed, racist juror No.10, and some fantastically choreographed film-making, the scene unfolding in a single shot without any cuts.

“Whatever Works”  Rated PG-13, 92 minutes.  Comedy distributed by Sony Pictures.  Written and directed by Woody Allen starring Larry David, Patricia Clarkson, Ed Begley and Evan Rachel Wood.

“Cheri” Rated R, 1 hour 32 minutes.  Drama starring Michelle Pfeiffer and Kathy Bates.  Distributed by Miramax Films.

Both of the above films will be shown at:

Friday & Saturday @ 1pm, 3:15, 5:20, 7:40 & 9:45

Sunday to Thursday @ 1pm, 3:15, 5:20, 7:30 & 9:30

“Moon”  Rated R, 1 hour 37 minutes.  Drama/futuristic fantasy starring Same Rockwell and Kevin Spacey.  Distributed by Sony Pictures.

“Away We Go”  Rated R, 1 hour 38 minutes.  Light fare starring Maya Rudolf and Dan Krasinski.  Distributed by Focus Features.

Both of the above films will be shown at:

Friday & Saturday@ 2pm, 4:30, 7pm & 9:45

Sunday to Thursday @ 2pm, 4:30, 7pm & 9:30

“Easy Virtue”  Rated PG-13, 93 minutes.  Colin Firth, Jessica Biel & Kristen Scott Thomas star in the adaptation of a Noel Coward play.  Distributed by Sony Classics.

Friday & Saturday @ 3:15, 5:20, 7:40 & 9:45

Sunday to Thursday @ 3:15, 5:20, 7:30 & 9:30

“Monsters Vs. Aliens”  Rated PG.  94 minutes animation

Friday to Thursday @ 1pm only

www.1750canyondrive.com

Ed Begley, Jr. suggested I use an EcoBroker real estate broker as my agent.
What is EcoBroker?
EcoBroker is a designation program for licensed real estate professionals providing education on energy and environmental issues and strategies for capitalizing on the growing green market. Certified EcoBrokers® meet buyer and seller demand for real estate professionals with a real understanding of the issues that drive current market decisions. EcoBrokers are taught about quality construction and energy saving construction “Green Technology”. Eco Brokers have passed a training course to insure that they can understand and explain how this home can save on fuel bills and insure comfort. This home includes many features that make it a cost effective home. It is not one of those strange architecture designs that would make it stand out as square or boxy looking design.

Being as interested in the environment as I am, I purchased and read two books that give information on how to “go green.”

First I’ll review Living Like Ed by Ed Begley, Jr.  If you watch Planet Green at all, you may have seen Ed’s show Living With Ed.  (You may recognize Ed as an actor as well.)  On their TV show Ed and his wife Rachelle discuss environmental tips and technologies, visit celebrity and non-celebrity friends and their homes, and learn about new green products coming to market.  It’s a pretty entertaining and informative show.  Ed wrote Living Like Ed  to give this green advice to folks in book form.  If you like the show and would like to have the book as a reference, it’s a good one to have on your shelf to help you make your home more environmentally friendly.

The second book I will review is GreenGreenerGreenest (A Practical Guide to Making Eco-Smart Choices a Part of Your Life) by Lori Bongiorno.  This is a very comprehensive reference book with a lot of good sources listed.  As much as I like Ed’s book, this one covers more subjects as Ed’s tends to stick mostly with home or transportation-related issues where Lori’s is more expansive.  It also is arranged in an interesting way in that she takes a topic, gives you some information about why this or that is an environmental problem, and then gives you the option of doing X to be green by telling you what the least expensive (or time-consuming) thing you could do would be, then she gives the option of doing Y to be even greener, or Z to be the greenest you could be.  Then, if you’re interested (or mad) enough to get up out of your recliner and really get involved in trying to fix the issue, she gives you information on organizations or government agencies to contact.

These books will both give you some really good resources to get you on the trail to a happy, healthy, greener lifestyle.

Boomerang is a 1947 film directed by Elia Kazan, Kazan’s 3^rd film, and includes a fairly large cast of film noir favorites. Dana Andrews is the star and a film noir legend. Other noir stalwarts include Lee J. Cobb, Arthur Kennedy, Sam Levene, Jane Wyatt, Ed Begley and Karl Malden. 

Boomerang has a striking and violent beginning for the period, with the voice-of-god narraration setting the stage while a minister walks along the street saying hello to the townspeople. Suddenly a pistol comes into the frame just above and behind the minister’s head. A quick cut away to the townsfolk minding their own business on the street and the shot rings out. 

From then on, the chase begins for the killer of the beloved minister. The entire local rabble is brought in for questioning and the townspeople are calling for action. This is all shown in a couple of montage sequences which is well done and is good for the economy of the film. 

Finally, the police think they have their man in John Waldron (Arthur Kennedy) who is a war veteran that is down on his luck. He is interrogated without a lawyer for hours on end by Police Chief Harold Robinson (Lee J. Cobb) and Lt. White (Karl Malden). The sleep depravation and other interrogation methods finally force Waldron to confess and the trial ensues. Andrews plays the State’s Attorney Henry Harvey that is trying the case of the roustabout Waldron. 

This film, if it is about only one thing, it is corruption. All the while the police are looking for the killer of the minister; the ones who have the power in the town are trying to use the killing as a means of gaining more power. Henry Harvey gets caught up in this and the pressure is also put on Robinson to get someone for the murder. 

Harvey puts on the pressure, but still retains some of his morality. He wants to seek the truth, but once the governor’s office is dangled in front of his face; his morality takes a back seat to his ambition.

 The noir elements of this film are most noticeable in the low angle shots used by Kazan, Kazan’s night scenes, and the Arthur Kennedy character Waldron. Waldron, though not the protagonist, is the one who is subjected to the roller coaster ride of fate. He is being accused of murder and has no real recourse. He is having trouble re-adjusting to life coming back from the war and is extremely conflicted and volatile, especially as he becomes more a pawn in the powerbroker’s local political maneuverings.   

The look of this film is tempered a bit from noirs such as Out of the Past and The Big Combo, but mainly because Kazan is not generally considered a film noir director. Along with Boomerang, Kazan’s only other noir direction is for Panic in the Streets. Both of which are early examples of docu-noir with their style not as stark because of the more realistic documentary look that is also being sought. 

As a docu-noir, this film is based upon a true story and the film is shot entirely on location in a small town in Connecticut. Many of the residents of the small town were used as extras and in minor roles. 

Spoiler Alert

 Dana Andrews’ character is different from many noir protagonists because he is not as subject to the fatalism that pervades most noir pictures. Andrews has control of the situation and he finally overcomes his own ambition for the Governship to do the right thing and seek the truth about the murder. He never finds the truth, as the case is still unsolved, but he does not convict an innocent man.

 Recommendation:

 This is a solid film with lots of solid acting. The cast is rather large, but each character has enough depth to set them apart from one another. It is not a visually striking as many of the better film noirs, but that can be explained by Kazan’s desire for a measure of realism.

 The first two-thirds of the film are much better than the last third. The courtroom scenes that dominate the ending of the film are almost laughable and any chance at realism is thrown out the window with the ridiculous proceedings that would have been ridiculous even for 1947 audiences.

 I still recommend this film, as it gives an eye toward what would eventually develop into a style for Kazan, because many of the actors are noir regulars that make most films worth watching, and because the portrayal of corruption is rather complex and ironic with the “reformers” being just as corrupt as the system they are attempting to reform.