Halloween is upon us, and what better time to take a look at the monsters of myth, legend, and nightmare and put them in a list in ascending order based on arbitrary criteria I make up as I go along? No better time, that's when.
13. Wolfman
I watched the original movie a few months back, and I must say it wasn't scary. Basically, a guy gets attacked by a wolf, turns into one himself the next full moon, goes after his love interest and gets shot by a gypsy. Or maybe it was a guy from town. There were definitely gypsies involved though. But really, it was as simple as shooting him. The werewolf hasn't got much tougher in the intervening years.
12. Zombie Zero
This is a stand-in for all zombies everywhere; the protozombie, if you will. Terrifying in Night of the Living Dead, the years have not been kind. 28 Days Later tried to liven things up by giving them the ability to run, but dozens of videogames in which you kill thousands of them with everything from a howitzer to a steely glare make them the red shirts of the monster kingdom.
11. Mummy
I first saw this as a kid and it was plenty scary. The idea that this implacable thing would just keep coming after you, never making a sound was very frightening. Then I realized it was all a metaphor for taxes and it fell apart. Oh, and Abbot and Costello kicked his ass.
10. Frankenstein
Easily the most sympathetic of the lot. He didn't ask to be. Some dude bolted his head on someone else's body like a bad nudie photoshop, shot him full of lightning, and made him wear uncomfortable platform shoes. All he wanted to do was be nice, make contact with people and fall in love. He had a bad temper, but so does Al Franken. Whoa.
9. Freddie
Could have been one of the greats, but multiple sequels diluted the product until it became a parody of itself. Still, the original idea of a pedophile getting burned to death in the school basement by parents then coming back to seek revenge by giving free haircuts in their kids' dreams was plenty freaky.
8. Pinhead
The image of a WWI soldier sitting in a room playing with a puzzle box that, when solved, opens a gateway to Hell is just awesome to me. Pinhead, number one evil dimensional time traveller and leather trenchcoat afficiando long before New came along was super creepy, as all people with British accents are.
7. That Head-Spider Thing From John Carpenter's Remake Of The Thing
One of the great unsung horror films of all time, this movie is still freaky as all-get-out even with the 80's special effects. The chest-giving-way-sprouting-teeth-and-chomping-the-guys-arms-off was bad. The dead guy's head detaching itself from the body, sprouting legs and running away was badass.
6. Jason Micheal Voorhees-Meyers
The implacable silent killer with a mask was a great concept in its original iteration. Personally, Halloween was a far better movie. But I've had nightmares about Jason, never about Michael. Weird.
5. George W. Bush
Maybe should have been considered for the top spot. I mean, here's a monster reputed to be the cause of every single thing that went wrong for eight years, and is still being invoked today! 9/11, flu scares, lead in toys, gas prices, hurricanes; he's been blamed for all these things!
4. Little Japanese Girls
True story: when Macy was two she would sometimes wake up early in the morning and come into my room to wait for me to wake up. She would do this by standing silently by my bed and stare at me. Eventually I would open my eyes and see a ghostly figure standing silently in a darkened room six inches from my face, just staring. And that's why I have rubber sheets.
3. Dracula
The original mac daddy. He can change into wolves and bats, he can command the same (and rats!), chicks find him irresistable. Then there's the less-suave, far scarier-looking version from Nosferatu, which the makers of the TV version of 'Salems's Lot later ripped off. Freaky freaky.
2. The Original Alien
The best horror film of all time featured the most terrifying monster in space. The thing had one form where it launched itself at your face and latched on like a spider and pooped eggs down your throat. The baby form exploded out of your chest and had stainless steel teeth. Then it grew up, became ten feet tall, could crawl on the ceiling, had a mouth that could shoot another mouth at you. Then, if you got lucky enough to wound it, it bled acid that would burn through every level of your spaceship until you lost compression. The best part of the film is that all the characters are grossed out by the gross stuff, scream when they see the monster, and scared to death the rest of the time. Just like you would be in that situation.
1. Shelob
I do not like spiders. The Shelob scene in The Lord of the Rings scared me when I first read it as a kid (see also: Mirkwood Forest in The Hobbit) and when that friggin spider came after Frodo in the movie theater I squirmed the whole time. The way spiders move freak me out. The way Shelob rolled Frodo while it spun webs around him made me want to throw up. I would gladly fight an army of zombies or a space cruiser full of aliens rather than take the chance that I might be awake when Shelob started rolling me.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Nannyarchy In The U.K.
London is a city that has CCTV cameras on every street corner. Citizens are caught on camera an average of 300 times a day. They are mandatory in pubs. Gun ownership is restricted nearly into non-existence. These measures are all justified by the U.K. equivalent of the old "national security" cliche here in America: public safety.
The overzealousness for public safety leads to police loitering around bars at night to hand out flip-flops to drunk patrons in heels. It leads to babies being taken from families the state decides is too fat to be trusted with raising a child. It leads to talk of creating a file for every child born so it can be monitored for signs that "the child is suffering significant harm" (no potential for abuses there, and one guess who decides the definition of 'significan harm').
It has now led to forcing parents who take their kids to a park in Watford to watch from behind a fence. They aren't allowed on the playground itself because they might be pedophiles.
Seriously.
The Watford council defends its actions by saying they're only following the law:
"Councillors insist they are merely following Government regulations and cannot allow adults to walk around playgrounds 'unchecked'."
Kids on the playground are to be supervised by government-vetted "play rangers"; adults the council has deemed responsible and safe enough to be allowed around children.
In fact, it seems Britain has taken the idea that anyone could be a pedophile to the extreme. In the U.S. if a person is convicted of certain crimes, he or she is placed on an offender's registry, a scarlet letter if you will. The problem with that system, apparently, is, what if you just haven't caught somebody yet?
They solve that apparently by having a sort of bizzaro sex offenders database. It lists people who are deemed not to be pedophiles. If you aren't in the government's computer, you either are one or perhaps just haven't been caught yet.
"It comes amid an escalating row over the Government's new anti-paedophile database, which will contain the names of more than 11 million adults cleared to work with children and vulnerable adults."
The idea that government knows best and citizens are children to be taken care of is anathema to many people. Even those who support big government would, I believe, strenuously object to measures like these (except for those who would be playing the role of nanny: they love this stuff). I'd like to think that if these sorts of things were introduced in America there would be outrage, perhaps even revolt. My question to those in the U.K.:
What are you waiting for?
The overzealousness for public safety leads to police loitering around bars at night to hand out flip-flops to drunk patrons in heels. It leads to babies being taken from families the state decides is too fat to be trusted with raising a child. It leads to talk of creating a file for every child born so it can be monitored for signs that "the child is suffering significant harm" (no potential for abuses there, and one guess who decides the definition of 'significan harm').
It has now led to forcing parents who take their kids to a park in Watford to watch from behind a fence. They aren't allowed on the playground itself because they might be pedophiles.
Seriously.
The Watford council defends its actions by saying they're only following the law:
"Councillors insist they are merely following Government regulations and cannot allow adults to walk around playgrounds 'unchecked'."
Kids on the playground are to be supervised by government-vetted "play rangers"; adults the council has deemed responsible and safe enough to be allowed around children.
In fact, it seems Britain has taken the idea that anyone could be a pedophile to the extreme. In the U.S. if a person is convicted of certain crimes, he or she is placed on an offender's registry, a scarlet letter if you will. The problem with that system, apparently, is, what if you just haven't caught somebody yet?
They solve that apparently by having a sort of bizzaro sex offenders database. It lists people who are deemed not to be pedophiles. If you aren't in the government's computer, you either are one or perhaps just haven't been caught yet.
"It comes amid an escalating row over the Government's new anti-paedophile database, which will contain the names of more than 11 million adults cleared to work with children and vulnerable adults."
The idea that government knows best and citizens are children to be taken care of is anathema to many people. Even those who support big government would, I believe, strenuously object to measures like these (except for those who would be playing the role of nanny: they love this stuff). I'd like to think that if these sorts of things were introduced in America there would be outrage, perhaps even revolt. My question to those in the U.K.:
What are you waiting for?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Spending Someone Else's Money
You are the executor of the late, lamented Ernest R. Megabucks, millionaire philanthropist and adventurer. His well left you in charge of caretaking his vast fortune, now liquidated, by doling out monies as needed for the care of his many children, siblings and other dear friends, all of whom, in the words of Ernest, "should be taken care of for life". Essentially, you have to sign checks.
In the beginning, this is all new to you. You meticulously weigh each request. Does the eldest son really need a car? Is the sister's request for a little spending cash for her vacation warranted? In the end, you okay these things because, well, you are supposed to be taking care of them. Besides, Ernest was a millionare. Fifty thousand here and two thousand there is nothing.
As the years go by, it's just easier to sign the checks rather than fight. You stop checking the account balance every other day; there's plenty of money to go around, and besides, it's not like it's your money being spent.
Eventually, the requests are for larger amounts and even more frivolous things. It's not for a doctor visit; it's for a nose job. It's not for a replacement car; it's for a third one. Still, the money isn't yours. It's theirs. The various heirs have become accustomed to having their every wish granted, their every request fulfilled. Eventually the money runs low. You can't give what isn't there. You try to figure out where the money went, but record keeping was never your strong suit. You know basically where it went; it went to Ernest's heirs. But you don't have any idea how much went to whom or what it was spent on.
Now read this article and see if you can understand why, while the author pushes this stance...
"The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually. That's one-third of the nation's health care bill," Kelley said in a statement.
"The good news is that by attacking waste we can reduce health care costs without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care."
...I take the opposite: billions of dollars of waste is endemic to a government-run operation because they aren't using their own money.
Private corporations have plenty of problems. Not knowing where the money went is not one of them: they'd be out of business [*]. Private businesses have to obsess over where the money goes. It's how they control costs, grow the business, and create return on investment for the shareholders.
When you're spending someone else's money it's way too easy to sign the check and worry about the accounting later.
[*] Unless someone steps in and bails them out, of course. With someone else's money.
In the beginning, this is all new to you. You meticulously weigh each request. Does the eldest son really need a car? Is the sister's request for a little spending cash for her vacation warranted? In the end, you okay these things because, well, you are supposed to be taking care of them. Besides, Ernest was a millionare. Fifty thousand here and two thousand there is nothing.
As the years go by, it's just easier to sign the checks rather than fight. You stop checking the account balance every other day; there's plenty of money to go around, and besides, it's not like it's your money being spent.
Eventually, the requests are for larger amounts and even more frivolous things. It's not for a doctor visit; it's for a nose job. It's not for a replacement car; it's for a third one. Still, the money isn't yours. It's theirs. The various heirs have become accustomed to having their every wish granted, their every request fulfilled. Eventually the money runs low. You can't give what isn't there. You try to figure out where the money went, but record keeping was never your strong suit. You know basically where it went; it went to Ernest's heirs. But you don't have any idea how much went to whom or what it was spent on.
Now read this article and see if you can understand why, while the author pushes this stance...
"The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually. That's one-third of the nation's health care bill," Kelley said in a statement.
"The good news is that by attacking waste we can reduce health care costs without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care."
...I take the opposite: billions of dollars of waste is endemic to a government-run operation because they aren't using their own money.
Private corporations have plenty of problems. Not knowing where the money went is not one of them: they'd be out of business [*]. Private businesses have to obsess over where the money goes. It's how they control costs, grow the business, and create return on investment for the shareholders.
When you're spending someone else's money it's way too easy to sign the check and worry about the accounting later.
[*] Unless someone steps in and bails them out, of course. With someone else's money.
Monday, October 26, 2009
A Tale Of Two Executives
The Obama administration is going after executive pay. This is no surprise; if a company gets in bed with the federal government by taking taxpayer money, they should expect the said government to step in and start taking the reins in some form. This is why bailouts were a bad idea in the first place.
But regardless of how you come down on the executive pay issue, there is an executive whose pay is untouchable. You just have to work for the right company. One that has always been in bed with the government.
"Freddie Mac is not just another company. It's alive today, and nearly 80 percent owned by the government, only because almost $51 billion in taxpayer funds were pumped into it over the last year. More bailout money also may be needed in the quarters ahead as losses from its troubled mortgages mount."
Private companies are being increasingly isolated as "bad". Government cronyism is increasingly being rewarded at taxpayer expense. That's saying something; cronyism has been around since George Washington first gave his half-brother's horseshoeing outfit a no-bid contract with the Continental army.
As long as their are two sets of rules, one for government-approved business and one for "evil" private companies, the economy will not recover. As soon as profit and competiton give way to favor-currying and tax money-fueled payoffs, a company is no longer a free market entity, and we're all the worse for it.
But regardless of how you come down on the executive pay issue, there is an executive whose pay is untouchable. You just have to work for the right company. One that has always been in bed with the government.
"Freddie Mac is not just another company. It's alive today, and nearly 80 percent owned by the government, only because almost $51 billion in taxpayer funds were pumped into it over the last year. More bailout money also may be needed in the quarters ahead as losses from its troubled mortgages mount."
Private companies are being increasingly isolated as "bad". Government cronyism is increasingly being rewarded at taxpayer expense. That's saying something; cronyism has been around since George Washington first gave his half-brother's horseshoeing outfit a no-bid contract with the Continental army.
As long as their are two sets of rules, one for government-approved business and one for "evil" private companies, the economy will not recover. As soon as profit and competiton give way to favor-currying and tax money-fueled payoffs, a company is no longer a free market entity, and we're all the worse for it.
Early Halloween
We took Macy to Zoo Boo in Little Falls, Minnesota this weekend. The local zoo does it up right with spooky tableaux and free candy. Despite putting Macy's costume in a bag with our duffel bags we managed to leave town without it. So a quick trip to Wal-Mart and some makeup wizardry from Donna and Macy was ready to to roam the lands as a witch.
After some early trick-or-treating we celebrated Donna's nephew's 5th birthday. Happy birthday, Cole!
After some early trick-or-treating we celebrated Donna's nephew's 5th birthday. Happy birthday, Cole!
Friday, October 23, 2009
Hippie Mail 2: The Return
Donna got some more hippie mail recently. Unlike some earlier correspondence, it didn't revolve around massacring wolves with apache helicopters. Instead, it revolved around buying various animals for various indigenous peoples from this place and that. They're very professional looking mailings. It's only when you open them and start reading that the crazy becomes evident.
Don't get me wrong; charities are wonderful things. Helping others is a noble goal. If a girl in Peru is given a chance to choose one thing that will lift her out of poverty and she picks an alpaca, hey, I've got no problem with that. Personally, I would say, "just give me the cash value", but I've never been a ten year old Peruvian mountain girl.
It seems to me though, that these charities could just buy a few goats, alpacas, rabbits, water buffalo, chickens, etc. Make sure they get some boys and girls and, you know, let nature take its course. They should only need some farmland, some feed, and maybe some mood lighting and Barry White CDs.
The other piece of mail makes a pitch for a much less nebulous form of help for those people suffering from third world maladies like measles, malaria and Madonna buying up all their children. It asks for money to do things like provide cataract surgery for the blind, provide training for healthcare workers and building community gardens. Noble goals, to be sure. Then it goes for jugular, and well, misses.
Bob Barker was a very vocal proponent of spaying and neutering your animals. Pamela Anderson extolled you to go naked before wearing fur. Ed McMahon told you how easy it was to sell your gold online. Who will stand up and plead the case for third world eye surgery?
This guy.
I am not lying.
Here is how he is introduced in the catalog: social activist, clown, author, Co-Director of Camp Winnarainbow.
Social activist and author make perfect sense. I have no idea what Camp Winnarainbow is (I'm afraid I might have a bad trip just from typing it into a search engine) but I'm sure it's brought a lot of something or other to an unspecified number of people. But clown? Unless you're the co-director of Kamp Krusty or possible a member of the Harlem Globetrotters, is that really an adjective you want attached to your endorsement?
Don't get me wrong; charities are wonderful things. Helping others is a noble goal. If a girl in Peru is given a chance to choose one thing that will lift her out of poverty and she picks an alpaca, hey, I've got no problem with that. Personally, I would say, "just give me the cash value", but I've never been a ten year old Peruvian mountain girl.
It seems to me though, that these charities could just buy a few goats, alpacas, rabbits, water buffalo, chickens, etc. Make sure they get some boys and girls and, you know, let nature take its course. They should only need some farmland, some feed, and maybe some mood lighting and Barry White CDs.
The other piece of mail makes a pitch for a much less nebulous form of help for those people suffering from third world maladies like measles, malaria and Madonna buying up all their children. It asks for money to do things like provide cataract surgery for the blind, provide training for healthcare workers and building community gardens. Noble goals, to be sure. Then it goes for jugular, and well, misses.
Bob Barker was a very vocal proponent of spaying and neutering your animals. Pamela Anderson extolled you to go naked before wearing fur. Ed McMahon told you how easy it was to sell your gold online. Who will stand up and plead the case for third world eye surgery?
This guy.
I am not lying.
Here is how he is introduced in the catalog: social activist, clown, author, Co-Director of Camp Winnarainbow.
Social activist and author make perfect sense. I have no idea what Camp Winnarainbow is (I'm afraid I might have a bad trip just from typing it into a search engine) but I'm sure it's brought a lot of something or other to an unspecified number of people. But clown? Unless you're the co-director of Kamp Krusty or possible a member of the Harlem Globetrotters, is that really an adjective you want attached to your endorsement?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)