Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Shakespeare’

A Long Time Ago…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 21, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Star Wars:  A New Hope” (1977) — movie review
Today’s review is for the space-fantasy adventure:  “Star Wars:  A New Hope”, written and directed by George Lucas and starring Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker, the restless farm kid who wants more than moisture farming;  Harrison Ford as Han Solo, the smuggler who pretends not to care but always does;  Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia Organa, the rebel leader who’s braver and sharper than anyone expects;  and Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi, the old hermit with a past he only hints at;  Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin, the cold, precise commander of the Death Star;  Anthony Daniels as C-3PO and Kenny Baker as R2-D2, the droids who end up carrying half the plot on their metal backs;   David Prowse (body) and James Earl Jones (voice) as Darth Vader, the black-armored enforcer whose presence fills every room;  and Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca, Han’s co-pilot and loyal friend.  The film blends adventure, myth, humor, and old-school serial energy into something that still feels fresh almost fifty years later.  I really think of this movie as a cultural blend of hero-epic / Sci-Fi Western / good-guy vs bad-guy / sensei-student / serial movie which helps explain the cross-societal acceptance.
Background:  I’ve seen this movie well over a couple of dozen times:  in theaters, on VHS, on DVD, on Blu-ray, and on streaming.  Perhaps only of interest to me, I never saw this film in its original theater release as I was in the Army and stationed in West Germany at the time.  I did see it in a theater when it was re-released for a short theater run prior to the release of the sequel.  This film was released in 1977 and “Star Wars:  A New Hope” was a cultural earthquake.  It received ten Academy Award nominations and won six competitive Oscars — including Best Editing, Best Score (John Williams), Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Sound, and Best Visual Effects — plus a Special Achievement Award for sound effects.  It was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Supporting Actor (Guinness).  Historically, it’s one of the most influential films ever made:  it changed how movies were marketed, how blockbusters were built, and how special effects were created.  It also launched a franchise that’s still going strong decades later.  Whether you love the sequels, prequels, or spin-offs, it all starts here.
Plot:  The story begins with a rebel ship fleeing a massive Imperial Star Destroyer.  Princess Leia hides stolen Death Star plans in R2‑D2 before being captured by Darth Vader.  The droids escape to Tatooine, where they’re found by Luke Skywalker, a young moisture farmer who feels trapped on his uncle’s homestead.  When R2 runs off to find Obi-Wan Kenobi, Luke follows and learns about the Force, the Jedi, and his father’s past.  After storm-troopers kill Luke’s aunt and uncle, he joins Obi-Wan on a mission to deliver the plans to the Rebellion.  They hire Han Solo and Chewbacca, fly to Alderaan (which has been destroyed), and get pulled into the Death Star.  Luke, Han, and Chewie rescue Leia;  Obi-Wan confronts Vader;  and the group escapes with the plans.  The film ends with the Rebel assault on the Death Star, where Luke (guided by the Force) fires the shot that destroys the station (remade in “Top Gun:  Maverick“).  It’s a simple story told with energy, heart, and a sense of wonder that still works.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  solid and iconic;  groundbreaking for its time;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes!  “Star Wars:  A New Hope” is one of those rare films that feels timeless.  It’s straightforward, earnest, and built around classic good-vs-evil storytelling.  The pacing is brisk, the characters are memorable, and the world feels lived-in without needing long explanations.  The movie’s charm comes from how confidently it mixes genres:  western, samurai film, WWII dogfights, fairy tale — and still feels like its own thing.  It’s not complicated, but it doesn’t need to be.  It’s fun, it’s adventurous, and it still works.
Acting:  The acting is so-so, but still better than people sometimes remember.  Hamill gives Luke the right mix of innocence and determination.  Ford steals scenes with his dry humor and easy charisma.  Fisher is sharp, commanding, and never plays Leia as a damsel.  Guinness brings gravitas that helps sell the whole “Jedi” idea.  The supporting cast (especially Cushing and the droids) adds texture and personality.  Vader, with Jones’ voice and Prowse’s physical presence, remains one of the great screen villains.  Nobody is doing Shakespeare here, but everyone fits their role.
Filming / FX:  For 1977, the effects were revolutionary.  The model work, motion-control photography, and sound design created a universe that felt huge.  The ships, the cantina creatures, the Death Star interiors — all of it still looks good.  Williams’ score is one of the greatest ever written and carries half the emotional weight.  Some shots show their age, but most of the film holds up remarkably well.  The editing keeps the action clear, and the final trench run is still one of the best sequences in sci-fi cinema.  I watched the film this time on DVD and the CGI generated scenes, particularly the added Solo confrontation with Jaba the Hutt is just poorly done by modern standards.  Solo is clearly superimposed over “something” which isn’t there.  But even though there are multiple FX issues, throughout the film, they don’t really distract from your (my) memories of the film or its enjoyment of those memories.  I’m not sure if a modern adult, seeing the film for the first time would agree without having the emotional baggage.
Problems:  A few.  Most of the “science” in the Sci-Fi is just wrong.  The early Tatooine scenes run a bit long.  The Storm-troopers’ aim is famously terrible.  And the movie’s simplicity (which is part of its current charm) means some characters don’t get much depth.  But none of these issues really hurt the film.  They’re more quirks than real problems.  By today’s standards, this would be a moderate to terrible “B” movie, but it’s difficult to separate this film from its time and place in history / American society.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  This is one of those movies that still makes us feel like kids.  The adventure, the music, the characters — it all works.  Even after multiple viewings, the Death Star battle still gets my heart rate up.  The film is fun, sincere, and (like most great hero-epic / westerns) endlessly re-watchable.  It’s not trying to be profound;  it’s trying to be exciting and entertaining, and it succeeds handsomely!
Final Recommendation:  Very Highly Recommended to MUST see. “Star Wars:  A New Hope” is a landmark of modern cinema — historically significant for its Academy Awards, its technical breakthroughs, and its cultural impact.  It’s also just a fun (not great) movie.  If you’ve somehow never seen it, you should.  And if you have, it’s always worth revisiting to remember why this galaxy far, far away became such a big part of our own.
.
Click here (21 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

A Dream? Awaken Then…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 27, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Jane Eyre” (2011) — movie review
Today’s review is for the period-romance / gothic-drama “Jane Eyre” (2011), starring Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre, the plain, principled governess whose quiet strength anchors the story;  Michael Fassbender as Edward Rochester, the brooding, wounded master of Thornfield Hall;  Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, the kindly housekeeper who gives Jane her first sense of belonging;  Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers, the earnest minister offering Jane a life of duty rather than love;  Sally Hawkins as Mrs. Reed, Jane’s cold, resentful aunt whose early cruelty shapes her resolve;  Valentina Cervi as Bertha Mason, Rochester’s “mad” wife hidden in the attic whose presence drives the central crisis;  and Romy Settbon Moore as Adèle Varens, Rochester’s young ward, whose vulnerability and near-tragedy in the fire raise the emotional stakes.  Directed by Cary Fukunaga, the film leans into the darker, more atmospheric elements of Charlotte Brontë’s novel while keeping the emotional core intact.
Background:  I first saw a film with this story in the early 2000s, but it was not this version.  This is my first viewing of this version and it might as well have been my first viewing – full stop – as I had no “real” recollection of the other version(s).  All I remember is it being dull.  I have never read the novel the film(s) was based on, so I can’t honestly say how close the film is to the source material.  This version, released in 2011, “Jane Eyre” earned strong critical reviews and received an Academy Award nomination for Best Costume Design.  Historically, it seems to be a grounded, modern adaptation of the novel (I guess) — focused on mood, isolation, and emotional self-reliance.  It didn’t make a major awards run, but it seems to be held up as a respected, serious take on the material (based on background reading as prep for this review).
Plot:  The story follows Jane from her harsh childhood under the Reed family to her years at Lowood School, and then to her employment at Thornfield Hall as governess to Adèle.  There she meets Rochester, whose brusque manner hides a complicated past.  Jane and Rochester develop a wary connection that deepens into affection, but just as Jane begins to imagine a future with him, she discovers the secret he has been hiding — a revelation that forces her to flee Thornfield.  Lost and starving, she is taken in by the Rivers siblings, where St. John offers her a life of missionary work and a marriage of obligation.  Jane nearly accepts, but she hears a final call from Rochester — emotional, intuitive, and almost supernatural — which leads her back to Thornfield, where she finds him blinded, humbled, and alone.  The story ends with their quiet reconciliation and the promise of a life built on honesty and mutual respect.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  atmospheric and effective;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  This “Jane Eyre” is one of the better modern literary adaptations because it respects the source material without trying to be too Victorian in dialogue.  The film is not a sweeping romance — it’s a quiet, steady story about two people who find each other despite their own damage.  The restraint works.  The film feels lived-in, not staged, and it avoids too much melodrama.
Acting:  Wasikowska gives a strong, grounded performance as Jane:  calm, intelligent, and emotionally contained without feeling cold.  She carries the film.  Fassbender plays Rochester with intensity but not excess;  he’s brooding, yes, but also vulnerable in a way that makes the character feel human.  Dench adds warmth and credibility as Mrs. Fairfax. Jamie Bell’s St. John is appropriately rigid — a man who confuses discipline with virtue.  Hawkins is convincingly unpleasant as Mrs. Reed.  Cervi’s Bertha Mason is mostly seen in flashes, but those moments are unsettling and effective, giving weight to the secret Rochester has tried to bury.  Moore is believable as Adèle — energetic, a bit fragile, and just present enough to remind us that Rochester’s choices affect more than just himself.  The ensemble fits the material cleanly.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is one of the film’s strengths.  Fukunaga uses natural light, muted colors, and tight framing to create a sense of isolation and emotional pressure.  Thornfield feels both grand and claustrophobic, which suits the story.  The moorland scenes are bleak and beautiful.  There are no special effects to speak of, but the visual choices (candlelit rooms, long corridors, fog‑covered landscapes) give the film a consistent tone.
Problems:  A few.  The film’s restraint may feel slow to some viewers, particularly in the early sections.  The script seems to compress certain parts of the story, which occasionally makes emotional transitions feel abrupt — especially Jane’s time with the Rivers family and teaching school.  The ending is effective, but may leave some viewers wanting a bit more emotional / passionate release.  None of these issues break the film.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s a thoughtful, well-acted adaptation that feels serious without turning it into a costume-drama cliché.  The performances are strong, the mood is consistent, and the final reunion scene lands with a quiet power.  It’s not flashy, but it’s emotionally satisfying in a steady, understated way.
Final Recommendation:  High moderate to low strong recommendation.  “Jane Eyre” (2011) is a well-crafted adaptation with excellent acting, a clear sense of period and cinematic atmosphere, and a respectful approach to a classic novel.  Its Academy Award nomination for Costume Design reflects the care put into the production, and its grounded tone makes it one of the more accessible versions of the story.  If you enjoy period dramas, literary adaptations, or character-driven romances, this film is worth your time.   As mentioned above, I know I’ve seen other versions of this “title”, but I don’t really remember them or when I saw them.  I will try to remember to watch and review them at some point for better comparison.  It strikes me that this will be like “Pride & Prejudice” or Shakespeare in that you have to watch a few different versions to appreciate the strength / weakness of any given version – not simply watch the same version multiple times.  Maybe it’s just me…  LoL
PS:  On posting the link to this review on my page for “J” films, I note I not only have seen this title, I’ve seen this version (review here).  The prior review is much shorter than the current format and dates from back in 2014, so in a way, it also serves as kind of a review of my blog dynamics…
.
Click here (27 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Experimental Weapon, Experimental Ammunition

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Quotes, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 17, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Quigley Down Under”   (1990)   —   movie review
Today’s review is for the 1990 Western-Australian hybrid:  “Quigley Down Under“, starring Tom Selleck as Matthew Quigley (an American sharpshooter with a moral compass), Alan Rickman as Elliott Marston (a sadistic land baron with delusions of grandeur), and Laura San Giacomo as “Crazy Cora” (a traumatized woman with a tragic past).
Background:  I frontloaded this film for viewing after a recent watch of “Galaxy Quest” reminded me how good Alan Rickman was.  From Shakespearean alien to dark wizard to British “landed” gentry to colonial villain (in this film), Rickman’s range is usually worth watching a film for.  I’ve never seen this film, but YouTube reminded me it is one of the few Westerns set in Australia — a genre mashup that seemed interesting.
Basic Plot:  Quigley, a cowboy marksman from the American West, answers a job ad in Australia.  He’s offered a job by Marston, a wealthy landowner, to use his long-range rifle skills to eliminate Aboriginal people encroaching on his land.  Quigley, upon learning the true nature of the job, refuses.  In turn, Marston has Quigley beaten and then (together with Cora) dropped off in the middle of the outback.  What follows is a classic Western revenge arc, but with a colonial twist:  while trying to survive, Quigley becomes a protector of the oppressed, a reluctant hero navigating an inhospitable land sprinkled with familiar and cruel (human) injustices.  “Crazy” Cora is a woman haunted by the loss of her child and marital abandonment.   Her bond with Quigley is fragile, tender, but ultimately redemptive.  Together, they face Marston’s hired guns and the harsh outback.
Any Good?  Acting?  Filming / FX?  Problems?  Did I enjoy it?  Short answers:  Yes;  solid to excellent;  visually striking;  a few genre clichés;  and yes, I did enjoy it.
Acting:  I must admit to never really being a Tom Selleck fan, but he is perfectly cast in this role.  He plays Quigley as a rough gentleman of few words and appropriately violent actions.  His Sharps rifle is an extension of his ethics:  he doesn’t shoot unless it matters.  Alan Rickman is familiarly cruel as Marston, (a bit of type casting) channeling the same disdainful arrogance he brought to “Die Hard” and “Harry Potter’s” Professor Snape.  Laura San Giacomo’s Cora is the emotional heart of the film and (IMHO) she knocks this role out of the park.  She’s that good!  Her personal trauma is not played for laughs (although it seems that way at the start of the film) or pity — it’s raw, erratic, and ultimately healed / resolved by her facing the demon in her past.  Her chemistry with Selleck is slow-developing, but the relationship is also predictable and inevitable.  (aka: “happy ending”)
Filming / FX:  The Australian outback is filmed like a character — vast, unforgiving, and beautifully desolate.  The cinematography emphasizes isolation and scale, making Quigley’s long-range shots feel super-human.  The rifle scenes are done with realism, not spectacle – whether or not they’re actually possible.  There’s minimal FX.  This is a Western, not a superhero flick — but the gun play is clean, the stunts are practical, and the final shootout is satisfying without being overly gratuitous (1 vs 3).
Problems:  The villains are intentionally cartoonishly evil, which works surprisingly well in a “modern” Western (“modern” to us post-1990s, as opposed to “early” Hollywood pre-1970s). The Aboriginal characters are noble “savages” and their story / culture pretty under-explained — an Australian substitution representative of the Native American Indian in our Western genre films.  If you accept the Western tropes, the film delivers on the “Good versus Evil” story arc and the one against many theme.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate to strong.  “Quigley Down Under” is a Western with a conscience.  It’s not just about shooting bad guys — it’s about deciding who the bad guys are and then standing against them.  The film criticizes colonialism without preaching, and gives us a hero who refuses to be complicit in injustice.  If you like your Westerns with moral clarity, sweeping landscapes, and a rifle that can hit a target at a thousand yard, this is a film worth viewing.
Final Thoughts:  There’s a line near the end where Marston brags about being very good with a pistol.  After fatally shooting him, Quigley replies to Marston:  “I said I didn’t have much use for them.  I never said I didn’t know how to use one.”  Up to then, Quigley had been killing most of the bad guys from a distance.  At the end, “justice” is delivered to the main bad-guy up close and personal.
.
Click here (17 August) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Pick Box Number Three

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Quotes, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 19, 2025| 2 Comments »

Today’s review is for the 2004 period-piece “romance / drama” film:  “The Merchant of Venice” staring Al Pacino as Shylock, Jeremy Irons as Antonio, Joseph Fiennes as Bassanio, Lynn Collins as Portia, and Zuleikha Robinson as Jessica.  According to Wikipedia, the movie is the first “big-screen” adaptation of the play.
Background:  This is (yet) another of my steps to experience / obtain a little English literature / culture.  I have viewed multiple Shakespeare films (plays) and so far reviewed:  “A Midsummer’s Night Dream“, “Romeo & Juliet” and “Shakespeare In Love“.  The last being a fictional portrayal of Shakespeare’s actual writing of “Romeo & Juliet“ and not a “work” of Shakespeare.
Plot:  This movie has two main themes:  1) antisemitism / revenge / justice, and 2) love. Young Bassanio seeks to marry Portia and borrows funds (from Shylock) to woo her.  Shylock (a wealthy Jewish / merchant / lender) loans the money with a guarantee / contract from Antonio (the “true” merchant of Venice and Bassanio’s benefactor).  Antonio is confident he will be able to pay the money back because he has multiple ships carrying goods from which he expects a tremendous return.  The contract stipulates if there is a failure to pay, Shylock can request a “pound of flesh” from Antonio.  The romance angle is Portia has multiple suitors and her father has devised a “three-box-test” for them to see which is the most deserving of her hand in marriage.  There is a sub-romance of Shylock’s daughter (Jessica) falling in love and running off with a Christian (and stealing some of Shylock’s wealth).  Blah, blah, blah…  Bassanio wins the test, but it takes too long to settle / marry and by the time it’s all said and done, the contract has expired and Antonio has failed to pay back the funds.  Antonio’s ships are presumed lost at sea.  The contract goes to court because the “pound of flesh” Shylock wants is from Antonio’s heart.  Blah, blah, blah, big trial – Shylock wins but is “denied” his prize via a legal loophole – he can take “flesh”, but not blood.  Blah, blah, blah…  Happily ever after.
Is the movie any good?  The movie was critically well received, but a box-office failure earning back only 2/3rd of the production costs.  Okay, but did I think it was “good”?  I had a lot of problems with the movie’s unresolved antisemitism and Shylock’s forced conversion to Christianity, but this movie was the “best” of the plays / adaptations I’ve seen to date.  Yes, I still had problems with the “Olde English” language and social references, but the dialogue / plot movie seemed to make sense and work (for me).
Is this a good romance / drama movie?  Yes, for me anyway.  Drama:  the court scene was pretty well done and I enjoyed the dialogue.  It wasn’t particularly “realistic” to have a female lead pretend to be a male, but I guess that’s a Shakespeare “thing”.  Romance:  I felt there was more “chemistry” between the two leads than in any of the other movies I’ve watched so far.  I don’t know if that’s down to the actors or the writing being better.  I guess I’ll have to see at least one other version before I can make that call.
As a period piece, this movie is well shot for atmosphere and costume.  The camera was sharp without being harsh and the costumes were neither too grungy nor too elegant.
Is the movie entertaining?  Again, I like this movie and I was entertained.  Other than the English problem, my biggest negative is “personal”.  It’s hard to “enjoy” and be “entertained” by a movie when you are concentrating and listing for famous lines (which may never materialize).  Maybe I just missed them, but I didn’t find that many “well known” lines.  The most memorable for me:  “If you prick us, do we not bleed?”  This is part of a Shylock soliloquy which had multiple phrases I recognized.
A plus was this film had an intro which served to set the table with a bit of narration / explanation / background.  The opening scene shows Antonio spitting on Shylock’s face and a near social riot as the Jewish population is forced to live in a Venice ghetto and are hated because they charge interest on the loans they provide.  Way back when, interest was considered “usury” and condemned by the Catholic Church.
Final recommendation:  moderate to strong.  If you want to “see” this play in a movie setting, this seems a good option.  I don’t think of this play as “top tier” Shakespeare, but I found this movie version interesting, entertaining and worth watching.  Again, it’s the best of the few works I’ve seen to date.  Final note:  I don’t know if it’s unique to this version or not, but I’ve always heard the joke about “you know it’s Shakespeare if everybody dies at the end”, but not everyone dies at the end of this movie.
.
Click here (19 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Two Thoughts For The Holiday

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, Work, tagged , , , , , , , , , on January 16, 2023| 2 Comments »

Today is a national holiday in the United States which commemorates the life of civil rights leader (Martin Luther King, Jr.)  who sought to bring “equality under law” to all citizens of our country.  One of the ways he sought to do this was by bringing dignity and equality to ALL work – not just for the well educated or the well paid – but for all who work their best and make our nation a better society for it.  The pursuit of excellence (“doing your best”) in any endeavor uplifts us all.  The following are two quotes expressing this idea:
All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.
    —     Martin Luther King, Jr.
If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry.  He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.
    —     Martin Luther King, Jr.
.
Click here (16 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

My Fear: A Second More Tyrannous Term

Posted in Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 6, 2020| 2 Comments »

O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.
     —    Shakespeare
[Are we better off today than we were four years ago?  I’m not just talking about 185,000 dead.  I’m not just talking about a crashed economy.  If there were no virus and we were still tooling along at 4% unemployment, were you REALLY better off?  Almost half of ALL Americans were living pay-check to paycheck.  Many are / were working two minimum wage jobs and are / were barely getting by.  Almost 2/3rd of working Americans have almost no savings for a “sudden” $400 emergency, let alone for retirement.  President  Trump (and the Republicans) want to destroy Social Security by de-funding it and promising it will be “paid for” from increased tax revenue from the future “booming” economy.  The truth is the SSA actuarial office has said if SSA taxes are eliminated, the SSA will run out of funds COMPLETELY in 2023!!!  President Trump lies multiple times EVERY day.  He is not being casual with the facts.  He is NOT just kidding.  He is LYING!  And, he is lying to constantly try to stoke fear.  Four years ago, it was the raping and murdering Mexicans invading across the border.  Now, it’s the liberals (i.e. “Democrats”) who are already here.  IF crime, rioting and violence are out of control, why hasn’t he done anything about the root causes of the problems.  The Republican controlled Senate is still dithering about a much needed economic relief package.  Now, when I say “Republican” controlled, what I mean is TRUMP controlled Senate as it’s his Cabinet level team which is doing the negotiations with the Democrats and whatever is agreed will pass both sides of Congress.  Senator McConnell is simply a figurehead manipulating the rules to the Republican advantage.  He is not the player / negotiator in the room with the Dems.  There is no relief because Trump wants to blame the Democrats (Pelosi and Shumer) in the lead up to the election.  So, I ask two questions:  Do you really believe President Trump is acting in your interests?  And, are you better off than you were four years ago?     —    kmab]
.
Click here (6 September) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Organized Skepticism

Posted in Education, Philosophy, Quotes, Science and Learning, tagged , , , , , , , , , on March 22, 2020| 2 Comments »

As a science journalist, I have devoted my career to writing about science and trying illuminate its findings and methods.  Science is incredibly tough in practice despite its often gentle and glamorous image.  By nature, it seeks to limit the role of faith, to make as few assumptions as possible, and to subject the information it gathers as well as its own tentative findings to withering doubt.  A synonym for “science” is “organized skepticism.”  The process can be intellectually brutal.  The constructive side is that science, done right, also works to suspend judgment, to collect and test and verify before coming to firm conclusions.  In theory, it can see without prejudice.  That makes it a rare thing in the world of human institutions.
But science — even at its best, even with its remarkable powers of discrimination and discovery — is nonetheless extraordinarily crude.  It can quantify and comprehend.  What gets set aside can be considerable — the wonders of the Sistine Chapel, among other achievements.  Science, for all its triumphs over the last four centuries, sometimes fails to see the obvious.  It is blind to the individuality of a snowflake and the convulsions of the stock market, not to mention ethics.  No equation is going to outdo Shakespeare.
…
What I know with certainty is that science cannot address, much less answer, many of the most interesting questions in life.  It’s one finger of a hand, as a wise man once said.  I treasure the scientific method for its insights and discoveries, as well as for the wealth of comforts and social advances it has given us.  But I question the value of scientism — the belief that science has authority over all other interpretations of life, including the philosophic and spiritual, moral and humanistic.
   —   William J. Broad
From his book:  “The Science of Yoga“
.
Click here (22 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

A Tale Of Two Books

Posted in 2012 Book Review, Book Review, Leadership, Quotes, Reading, Running, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 10, 2012| Leave a Comment »

This week I completed two books – one very good and one not very good.
The very good book is titled:  “On Becoming A Leader” (2003©) and was written by Warren Bennis  – updated version from the original published in 1989.  Bennis is considered to be the “father” of the developed leader school.  His mantra is that leaders are not born, they are made.  Some are made by history, but Bennis goes farther in that he believes many (if not most) make themselves.  They (leaders in process) have various ways of “making” themselves, but ultimately they follow similar paths to becoming a leader.  The book is meant to lend framework to the path – partly to define the framework, but mostly to lay out the map for readers (leaders in process).
Shakespeare states:  “Be not afraid of greatness;  some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them.”  This is a quote often seen when discussing how great leaders come to be.  I believe all three are true for “historic” leaders and am not convinced that any one is more prevalent than the other two.  I do feel that history and luck play the biggest role in “greatness”, though.
Bennis is firmly in the “achieving” camp.  It should be pointed out there is a difference between “greatness” and “leadership” and Bennis is concerned with the latter and not the former.  This book is his version of “how” to become a leader – the personal traits you need to develop, how you should lead, and how you must form your organization or how it will form you.  There is a statement that great leaders understand themselves and “express” their nature fully.  This is the part where I start to fall away from Bennis.  While I can understand “warm-fuzzy psycho-babble”, it’s not my cup of tea.  It simply doesn’t “resonate” with me.  This may simply be because I’m not a “great” leader and I’m therefore not  able to feel the “expressive” nature of great leadership hidden away in me.  (But, I doubt it…)
Anyway, as negative as the preceding paragraphs sound, this is actually a VERY good book and I highly recommend it – not because I believe everything Bennis says, but rather because I love his use of language.  I probably hope that being “fully expressive” is all it takes to be a great leader, because this implies I may still develop into a great leader myself.  (But, I doubt it…)
By the way, this was another $2 clearance book at Half-Price Books (and worth ten times as much), and you’ll be seeing frequent quotes from the book in future posts.
The second book is titled:  “Marathoning A-Z” and was written by Hal Higdon (2002©).  The book is sub-titled: “500 Ways to Run Better, Faster,and Smarter“.  The book is a series of alphabetically sorted snippets from his question and answer columns and emails about running.  The book is a very fast read.  This is partly because each offering truly is a snippet and partly because there is almost nothing stated which makes one pause to think.  As such, I could not recommend this book to any but the most rank beginner of a runner.  Even then I’d qualify the book to them by stating at least 20 to 30 of the items are repeated in a different alphabet letter.  I’m not sure if this was meant to introduce humor or simply filler because you’ve promised the publisher 500 items.  (I have a feeling it’s the latter…)  Sadly, this was NOT a $2 book for me.  It was $4.95 and I was over-charged about $4 in value vs cost.  Save your money and check this out of a library.  Better yet, just go out and start jogging.  You’ll get more from jogging yourself than you will ever get from this book.
.
Click here (10 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

No Sooner

Posted in My Journal, Quotes, tagged , , , , on February 7, 2012| Leave a Comment »

No sooner met but they looked;
no sooner looked but they loved;
no sooner loved but they sighed;
no sooner sighed but they asked one another the reason;
no sooner knew the reason but they sought the remedy…
   —   William Shakespeare
From:  “As You Like It“
.
Click here (7 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started