The Dice Man By Luke Rhinehart Thraxas by Martin Scott Big Trouble by Dave Barry 
Seventeen by Ladytron Seeed 2.0 by The Roots   
|
|
The Dice Man By Luke Rhinehart Thraxas by Martin Scott Big Trouble by Dave Barry
Seventeen by Ladytron Seeed 2.0 by The Roots
|
If fiction can be regarded as a culture's subconscious, then it's clear that we are a nation obsessed with the very rich. From avaricious caricatures like The Simpsons' Montgomery Burns to literary character studies like F. Scott Fitzgerald's Jay Gatsby, our culture--both high and low--is littered with images of billionaires and tycoons. Some characters are intentional riffs on real-life counterparts, most famously Orson Welles' blistering portrayal of William Randolph Hearst in Citizen Kane.
Others, like Gordon Gekko from Oliver Stone's Wall Street, came to symbolize both a man--convicted inside trader Ivan Boesky--and an era: the go-go 1980s. To be sure, many are pure products of the imagination. But given the legion of publicity men and image handlers surrounding the typical real-life billionaires, understanding these fictitious characters is as close as most of us will come to grasping the minds of the very rich.
| Rank | Name | Net Worth |
| 1. | Santa Claus | $ ∞ |
| 2. | Richie Rich | 24.7 billion |
| 3. | Oliver "Daddy" Warbucks | 10 billion |
| 4. | Scrooge McDuck | 8.2 billion |
| 5. | Thurston Howell III | 8 billion |
| 6. | Willie Wonka | 8 billion |
| 7. | Bruce Wayne | 6.3 billion |
| 8. | Lex Luthor | 4.7 billion |
| 9. | J.R. Ewing | 2.8 billion |
| 10. | Auric Goldfinger | 1.2 billion |
| 11. | C. Montgomery Burns | 1 billion |
| 12. | Charles Foster Kane | 1 billion |
| 13. | Cruella De Vil | 875 millon |
| 14. | Gordon Gekko | 650 millon |
| 15. | Jay Gatsby | 600 millon |
People, I've had an epiphany. It took place late last night, as I ventured into a concert featuring Ralph Myerz & the Jack Herren Band. I had only the slightest of knowledge of them, having heard their excellent 'Nikita' on one of the numerous compilations they've participated in. I went in, expecting a good, but not overly spectacular band. Little did I know. The Band is composed by Erlend Sellevold on DJ, Tarjei Strøm on drums and Thomas Lønnheim on percussions. As a live act, they simply cannot be beat.
This is no small feat, considering that none of the members can leave their instrument, yet this fact only adds to the inherent magnetism they display on stage. There's a deep and steady vibe that penetrates the locale when they start playing; These boys are very good at what they do, and they're even better at showing their affection for it. This was one of the most best concert experiences I've had so far.
Norwegian Electronica has had an upswing as of lately, with names as Røyksopp, Xploding Plastix and Bjørn Torske gaining some household recognition. Which is about damn time, one would say, having followed them before the media did. When I say that Ralph Myerz and his cohorts deserves all the hype they're not getting, I'm not joking. I know of band that would kill for having their suave elegance on-stage; combining the soft electro beats with hard-head panache drumming. In most bands, the drummer is the invisible member, leaving the spotlight for those with more agile instruments, say guitar or vocals. In concert with Ralph Myerz, we are treated to a scene most reminiscent of Donald Duck and Daffy Duck's dueling pianos, foregoing cymbals and drumsticks for tangents and footpedals. Do yourself a musical favour this week, find yourself some Ralph Myerz & the Jack Herren Band to listen to. You will thank me for a long, long time.
Her er en linje.
Ha en god dag.
How far can you stretch the concept of "free press"? What does exactly "freedom of speech" entails. That's exactly the questions publishers Paladin Press had to answer following the trail concerning their 1983 publication, "Hit Man -A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors", written by Rex Feral(later revealed to be a psuedonym for a female author.
The book itself is a rather fascinatingly morbid handbook which describes how one can be an accomplished contract killer, covering such topics as self-made silencers, identities, and throw-away guns. For the layman, the book is convincingly enough, although people with military experience can pick out minor discrepancies all the way concerning the handling of weapons. For instance, the book recommends the AR-7 as a cheap, disposable and reliable weapon, of which the latter quality the AR-7 has never been known to posess. Paladin itself has always been one of the underground publishers. Nevertheless, let's skip to the legal matters.
In January 1992, James Perry purchased Hit Man. In the summer of 1992, Lawrence Horn allegedly hired Perry. In 1993, Perry murdered three people. In October 1994, Perry was convicted of murder.
In Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, a professional hitman murdered a man's paraplegic child and ex-wife so that the man could collect his deceased son's malpractice settlement. The brutal deed was carried out according to specific instructions in the book Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors.
The victims' family sued the publisher. Surprisingly, the publisher admitted (for pre-trial purposes) that the book was "intended" to be used as the hitman had used it. Despite this concession, however, the lawsuit was still dismissed - as many had expected - on First Amendment grounds. One decisive factor was the judge's assessment that "books do not kill; only people do." The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the dismissal.
The First Amendment, the appellate court wrote, had no room for a book with a "declared purpose ... to facilitate murder," and especially not one "marketed directly and even primarily to murderers and would-be criminals." To assure the media that it retained the protections of the First Amendment despite this ruling, the court sought to tailor its decision to the specific facts of the case. It had no desire to open a Pandora's box that would swallow the First Amendment.
"Paladin's astonishing stipulations, coupled with the extraordinary comprehensiveness, detail, and clarity of Hit Man's instructions for criminal activity and murder in particular, the boldness of its palpable exhortation to murder, the alarming power and effectiveness of its peculiar form of instruction, the notable absence from its text of the kind of ideas for the protection of which the First Amendment exists, and the book's evident lack of any even arguably legitimate purpose beyond the promotion and teaching of murder, render this case unique in the law."
Indeed. What the court here fails to reconize is that there can not be nominative free speech. Either it is absolute, or it is no longer free speech. The contents of any book should not be illegal in any way, even though they may offend, even disgust a large number of people. If we are to arbitrarily judge which books possess "artistic qualities", we will end up with a thought fascism, dictated by whomever is in charge of the selective process. Another fact, not to be forgotten, is that "Hitman" would have made a second-rate novel at best. As a handbook, it is far more clinical and descriptive, and more-so a chillingly view at how deadly the human mind can be. In this way, I consider it a literary device. Interestly enough, that would put it alongside American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis, another book that I would scarcely imagine going through the selective process of the narrow minds of law.
Paladin settled with the plaintiffs the evening before the trail was scheduled, hoping to avoid a lenghty and costy legal battle. The book itself was then given free as public domain, and promptly mirrored at overthrow.com and later die.net. The trail spawned quite a lot of heated debate on misc. discussing lists, the opinions being divided on the matter.
The accusing laywer, Rod Smolla, nominally a first amendement protector, went on to write his own version of the proceedings in the book Deliberate Intent, which was made into a film starring Timothy Hutton. Even the computer game "Hitman" from Eidos seems to have originated in this process.
In my eyes, the whole process is a farce. The fact that the money the Rice family was killed for was amassed through the means of a malpractice suit should not go unnoticed. It would have been morally natural to sue the killer, just as it would be monetarilly benefactory to go to trail against the publisher. Even admidst the familiar disaster, the Rice family looks to have had an ulterior motive. The process was settled out of court, so we will never know the Courts official view on this, but other publishers of "how-to" books have filed amici briefs expressing concern that if Paladin Press has to pay damages to the plaintiffs, this could set a precedent whereby publishers of *any and all* "how-to" books could be found liable for damages in similar cases. For example, if someone learns how to make a bomb from a chemistry textbook, will the publisher be found liable for aiding and abetting murder?
Think of the ramifications; teachers and instructors will become target practice. You will no longer be able to give out information to anyone because they can misuse it. Information is just that: Information. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just to underline my official standpoint on this thing, I've taken the liberty to mirror a copy of the Hitman on this very site. Enjoy.
At least they don't do it *properly* anymore. Anyway, yesterday saw me happily cleaning my humble little home, taking advantage of the onset of summer. By chance, I turned on the telly to have some background music to accompany the tedious doings. And then... I stumbled into one of those films that you find yourself unable to switch off.
For me, one of these genres are british WWII movies. Yeah, I know it's ironical, since I usually can't stand the american movies detailing the same subject, but I ascribe this to the more sedate british way of telling things. I have this weakness for this kinds of films; The Canons on Navarone, the Eagle's Nest; and the two I just discovered; The Wild Geese and The Eagle has Landed. Oh yeah, I don't like customary happy endings either. Here's to the old-fashioned kind of movies when PC was a non-topic.
The story is none too complicated, but the actors really nails it to the wall and makes us enjoy it all as a gripping ball of yarn, instantly dismissing things as crappy effects and some uh-ah clicheed supporting personae.
Richard Burton picks up his former warbuddies Richard Moore, Richard Harris and Jack Watson, and forms a mercenary squad to spring an african president, played by Winston Ntshona, from imprisonment by the army that has overrun his nation. It's a right rag-rag bunch of army veterans that they scrounge up; most are over the hill and some looks as if they're already buried underneath it.
Nevertheless, with fifty men, they go at their task with abandon, and succeed in their initial goal, only to find themselves doublecrossed by their erstwhile employer. The latter part of the film details them running from the army of the Simbas while not really having anywhere to run, either.
For my sentiments, it's a classic. The war scenes are downplayed and subtle, making them infinitely more realistic for someone with real army experience than say, Saving Private Ryan and all the other glorious bullshit they produce these days. Loosly built on the exploits of "Mad Mike" Hoare, who was hired as a technical consultant for this film, it's a gripping tale that plays all the right buttons.
It's oh-so-predictable in places, but it's enjoyment nontheless. THIS is the factor I lack in most of modern films. I want to not care if the events are implausible and reality turned up late for work. If the movie doesn't have a message, great, just don't moralise my face full to cover up for it. Entertain me. Do not teach me.
"Run like hell, we're running out of ammo!"
"In 1943 sixteen German paratroopers landed in England. In three days they nearly won the War."
Michael Caine and Donald Sutherland stars in this movie, based on the book by Jack Higgins, which is about a fictinous nazi attempt to assassinate Winston Churchill. Caine plays Colonel Kurt Steiner, a desperate man on a suicide mission while Sutherland plays Liam Devlin, the disgruntled Irish fifth-colonist. You *know* you're dealing with proper actors when they make their nazi counterparts more sympathic than the allied forces without dealing with any kind of political motivation.
Although Donald Pleasance and Anthony Quayle does remarkable jobs as Himmler and Admiral Canaris, respectivly, the show really belongs to Caine and Sutherland. You feel some sort of benign respect for people that think their superiours are utterly deranged, yet goes to the extremes to try to execute their orders. I think it says something about mankind that we are more adept at following orders than we are at making them.
Anyway, good movie, very recommended, but don't watch if you're not prepared to see WWII events in a more objective angle than contemporary society prefers.
We are writing the year 2002. The noble art of petrol-driven transportation has come a far leap since messieurs Benz & Daimler made their three-wheeled horse carriage selfpropelled for the first time in 1888. Over the years, progress has been paramount. For each new model year, we see new gadgets, new stylings, better handling and higher status than the year before. For some, it's natural evolution. For others, a vicious circle.
But let's be honest here, disregarding things such as ABS and servo-steering..... they made cars with soul back in the days. Today, every car manufacturer makes a generic car, no less or more suitable for transport than a similar car made by another manufacturer. You just don't identify with the cars the way you used to. The thrill is gone, and with it, a part of the fun.
Let's talk motorcycles.
In the post WWII-era, british motorcycles were the haute couture. At least until the 1960's, when a lot of companies made peace with the red numbers and cancelled all production. Nearly all of the classic bikes were gone. Sans one.
The Royal Enfield Bullet, in its present form, was first introduced in Britain in 1949 as a 350cc bike. It incorporated an innovative design element: swing arm suspension. This feature along with its extremely strong single cylinder engine allowed it to excel as a trials bike. The 500cc model was introduced in Britain during the 1950's, winning hundreds of races. This brought the Bullet international recognition and orders came into the factory in Redditch, England from all over the world.
Through a delicious twist of destiny, the Royal Enfield survived. In 1955, the Indian government needed a solid and reliable motorcycle for its police and army, in particular to patrol the rugged border highways. The Royal Enfield Bullet was chosen as the most suitable bike for the job.The Indian government ordered 800 of the 350cc model, beyond the company's ability to fill at the time. With more orders from India looming, the company sold its design to EnfieldI ndia, a subsidiary firm in Madras, India to start manufacturing them there. By 1956 a full factory had been established in India and the Enfield India, Ltd. began producing the Enfield Bullet in its entirety. In India they produced the machine they had been trained to make, the 1955 Bullet.
Away from the hostile business enviroment in Europe/US, Enfield India continued to churn out Bullets just the way they were made in England in 1955, regardless of current trends. Forty years later they still do, with a few minor modifications (signal lights, a 28 mm Mikuni carb, 12-volt electrics, a better bench seat and in 1990, twin leading-shoe brakes). While not the largest motorcycle manufacturer in India (they rank about third, producing around 18,500 bikes a year but have plans to increase that to 25,000), they are one of its oldest.
Sporting a *VERY* rugged construction, powered by a one-cylinder four stroke engine, the Enfield is nigh-indistructable. The rather well-known weakness is an inherently cumbersome transmission, which sports an innovation of it's own: The neutral finder.
Now for the punchline: Since 1995, Royal Enfields have been fairly successfully exported to other countries, offering an unique taste of former british glory for a modest penny (considering the opposition). My father bought one of these in India, and exported it himself in the early nineties, and after having languished away in the garage for more than two years, I've seen fit to restoring it to everyday use. Which should be a lot more than previously, seeing as it's only got 980 km on the counter, which is pitifully little for a bike built in 1993. Not to mention that it was constructed in 1995.
There is a contemporary trend towards political correctness. Because of this, many companies have seen fit to disown or supress many of their former works, which, while deemed appropriate at the time of their release, now can be considered offensive and/or inappropriate. Even something as gentle and cute as cartoons are not exempted from this. Warner Bros has quitely removed scenes from old Looney Tunes loops wherein Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck play on racial predjuice (ie blackface, offensive behaviour, overdone characteristics etc.), and even Disney has a skeleton in the closet. They have in fact several. But this is going to be about one that they shouldn't have supressed in the first place.
From Don Markstein's Toonopedia :
Donald Duck first appeared in the Walt Disney cartoon The Wise Little Hen (1934), which was directed by Wilfred Jackson. He and Peter Pig acted as supporting characters in the well-known fable, the ones who refuse their help and are denied the reward. Peter headed straight for oblivion, but Donald, because of the unique contribution of voice actor Clarence "Ducky" Nash, was destined for better things.Donald received Oscar nominations for Good Scouts (1938), "Truant Officer Donald" (1941), Donald's Crime (1945), Chip 'n' Dale (1947), Tea for Two Hundred (1948), Toy Tinkers (1949), Rugged Bear (1953), and No Hunting (1955). His only win was for the rarely-seen Der Fuhrer's Face (1943), which parodied Nazi Germany and which the Disney company considers too dated for a modern audience. Most were directed by either Jack King or Jack Hannah.
Now, "too dated" is complete and utter hogwash. The cartoon is hilarious, and Disney's unwillingness to screen this film can only be seen as censorship. Granted, the film was the product of american war propaganda at the time being, but that does not changes the realities; it is hilarious. There is very little else we want from a Disney cartoon than exactly that, then why bother supressing it, the fact that it is in fact an oscar winner not withstanding?
Short Answer: They're all fuckheads.
Solution: Download a copy from Stile Project (wmv format, 30 mb), and laugh your heart out.(nb: The copy I've scrounged up is quite dated, and suffers from bad sync and rolling picutre. Still, you get the gist of the movie.
Of note is especially the soundtrack. The leading song, written by Oliver Wallace Der Fuehrer's face became so popular, especially in the rendition by Spike Jones and his City Slickers, that they renamed the film to fit the song.
Here are some full movie reviews and more than 65 capsule reviews. Most of the capsule reviews are condensed from MIM Notes. The full text of other reviews may be available in the MIM Notes archive on this site. Movie reviews are a great way to comment on popular culture, and all the things that come up in the movies, from crime and sex and war, to political struggles, history, documentary materials, and so on.
Excerpt from the "Enemy of the State" review
The biggest problem with the movie was its portrayal of the corrupt congressman and his flunkies as a few bad apples. And of course, its lack of solution to the problem of government powers and corruption. The wife of the main character, an ACLU lawyer, kept criticizing the legislation that would give the government greater surveillance powers but in the end when the legislation was defeated she just sounded like an anti-power nihilist. In response to a news report that the government would have to set up an oversight committee to get surveillance powers expanded she asked the rhetorical question "who will oversee the oversight committee." This underscores the real problem: The government can't be trusted to watch over itself. With the power in the hands of the imperialists, the less power they are given the better.
Only with power in the hands of the people will the people be able to control the government. This is why MIM calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat. We want a society where the majority, the oppressed exploited people of the world, controls the government and forcibly keeps the minority from stealing power and wealth for themselves. Only with this power will the people be able to build a truly just society where the government does not need to spy on people who are politically active ase nemies of the state. And with this power the people will be able to build a communist society where all people truly are equal.
E notes: This ranges from thoughtful to provocative to downright hilarious. Trust the sosialists for a different angle on everything. At least worth a visit.
