While we’re in the mood to wish we were playing hooky today (sorry, but the warm weather is making me feel all springy inside--a feeling that I am sure will retreat when the cold and snow come back to snuff out my happy dreams of beaches and sunshine), you should check out this creepy ass taxidermy of doom. Cool, creative, and more than a little disturbing.
Earlier today I was talking to co-workers and trying to explain what I like in movies. I told them that movies had to either make me laugh or make me feel, and that all else was a waste of my time. Of course, it’s a little more complex than that, but lunchtime talk only leaves so much time for nuance.
Moving the story along…
This evening I was reading a bit about Noel Coward and came across this quote:
“I will accept anything in the theatre . . . provided it amuses or moves me. But if it does neither, I want to go home.”
This will be the first time (and possibly last time) that I share one of those embedded YouTube videos. Not that I’m opposed to them, I just don’t usually see anything that really catches my eyes. This is different.
Noah Kalina is a photographer who has taken a picture of himself everyday from January 11, 2001. Apparently, on July 31, 2006, he stitched his work in progress together to create one fast-moving view of over five years of his life. The movie creates an odd sense of motion with the changing backgrounds and hair that makes the whole thing compelling to view. It isn’t particularly emotional or funny, but the visual sense of change (maybe even the lack of change) is somehow intriguing.
One of the comments on the video suggested that this might be what it’s like when you’re dying and your life “flashes before your eyes.” Or maybe it’s a testament on the mundane nature of our lives where the years fly by and it’s hard to tell one day from the next. Maybe, for Noah, it’s the ultimate scrapbook of concealed memories that the rest of us can only imagine. Hell, maybe it’s just a narcissistic exercise masquerading as art.
Whatever it is, I know that it caught my attention.
I’m not quite an open borders advocate, but I’ve always been of the mind that a liberal immigration policy would be a good thing. But let’s get something straight: no other country sets our immigration policy.
Some foreign diplomats suffer under the delusion that they should be allowed to set our policies.
Diplomats from Mexico and Central America on Monday demanded guest worker programs and the legalization of undocumented migrants in the United States, while criticizing a U.S. proposal for tougher border enforcement.
[...]
“Migrants, regardless of their migratory status, should not be treated like criminals,” they said.
Of course, the fact that a migrant crossed a border illegally absolutely does make them criminals and subject to treatment as such. It’s laughable to suggest otherwise. It’s also good business, as the article goes on to note, since “Mexicans working in the United States are a huge source of revenue for Mexico, sending home more than $16 billion in remittances in 2004, Mexico’s second largest source of foreign currency after oil exports according to the country’s central bank.”
Mexico’s economic desires do not dictate American policy needs, though, and what is good for Mexico (and the other nations represented) is not necessarily good for America.
“There has to be an integrated reform that includes a temporary worker program, but also the regularization of those people who are already living in receptor countries,” Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said.
That is not a decision to be made by diplomats outside of the United States. The necessity of a temporary work program and an amnesty program of some kind is debatable. While the Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary is welcome to share his views, he won’t be setting American policy any time soon.
Dodge Challenger. Sexy. Perhaps too perfectly an object of the seventies, but boys of a certain age will be instantly captivated.
Chevy Camaro. Not so sexy. I can’t put my finger on why the Camaro fails to move me. Is the front end too blocky? Is it that the lines trailing to the rear of the car are disjointed? Is it that squinty look to the headlights? I’m not sure what it is, but it doesn’t quite work.
Ford Shelby Cobra GT500 Ever since loudly driving a new Mustang through Florida (on my most recent vacation), I’ve been in love with Ford’s cheap little muscle car. A pretty face, a fun car to drive, and easy power go a long way in an inexpensive package. And this is the ultimate Mustang. Gimme.
Ford Reflex (on the same page as the GT500). This car intrigues me. The various pictures that I’ve seen show it to be tremendously impractical. The rear view must be horrible and the body looks like it would be expensive to produce. But something about the squat little thing looks like it would be fun to drive. Even more, that line that extends, mid-body, from the front quarter panel all the way to the back of the car and then switches back to make a trip all the way to the leading edge is just gorgeous. The way it echoes in the lines around it, always in harmony and always flowing, is the kind of design that I love.
I wouldn’t call it a pretty car, but I would call it an extremely well finished design.
So, yeah, I want to look closer at this one.
And while we’re talking about it, why the hell don’t I have a job yet? Hmm? I mean, seriously, I’ve been unemployed for two freakin’ days. I’m getting tired of this.
