So, Netflix has brought me a few more movies recently, thought I'd give my opinion on the latest three.
The Four Feathers: *** Starring Heath Ledger, in a part I would have preferred someone else, maybe Ioan Gruffud (sp). It wasn't bad. It didn't flow well, I don't know how else to describe it. It jumped around and wasn't a smooth movie. I liked the story, but to be really good, probably needed another 40sh minutes of really good character development (or maybe they could have done it in less if the character development they had had been done better). Anyway, it was enjoyable, and I can recommend it.
P.S. I Love You: ** 1/2 to ***. This has Gerard Butler, Hilary Swank, Harry Connick Jr., Lisa Kudrow, etc. This movie was good...ish. It is definitely not what you would classify as a 'romance'. Nor is it a comedy, though there are funny parts of it. It is drama, and it is sad drama. Gerard Butler dies within like 6 minutes of the movie's opening, and he is probably the best character. I found Harry Connick quite amusing at times. And Kathy Bates does her normal above average performance. If you don't like sad, don't watch it. It doesn't really have a happy lift you up at the end moment. Its just, yup, thats sad, and we will work through it, because we have to. So, go in with that in mind. I will not recommend it, not because it wasn't any good, but I'm still not sure if I liked it, and I don't think Alisa is sure yet either.
Goal: *** 1/2. Maybe it being about soccer bumped it up in my view, but Alisa really liked it too. No big stars, no hoopla, but it was a nice story, with great action, some impressive cameos (if you know who they are *Real Madrid stars hint hint*). I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Highly recommended.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Credit where its due.
Cap and Trade
So, the other day Alisa was telling me about something she had heard Sean Hannity say, (our radio is usually on KSL for news, neither of us listen to Hannity as a rule, he's a colossal tool). Anyway, he was spouting something about the current Cap and Trade bill co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner in the Senate. Now, as far as democrat Senators go, I like Lieberman pretty well. Not because I agree with all of his stances, but more because he seems to have them, and I respect that. I would rather someone I disagree with, that actually stands for something, then someone that I agree with a bunch of their stances, but I can tell they only hold them as long as they are politically expedient, but I digress.
Anyway, as I knew very little about the bill, I googled it. I found this article that I thought was a fairly simple, and merely informative piece. Its not long, and if you want to get just a rudimentary bare bones idea of the proposal, it will clue you in. It also, thankfully, seems to just provide information, gives both sides stances and the basic arguments for both. Interesting thing is, everyone on this one has a pretty good point. I guess it just comes down to what you think is the most important thing in the debate.
Here is the basic (very basic) idea to the proposal.
First, carbon emissions are damaging to the environment (whether or not you believe in global warming doesn't matter here, you should still be able to, out of intellectual honesty, admit that more emissions are worse, fewer emissions are better). This bill would set up a system of permits allowing companies that use fossil fuels to emit a certain amount of junk into the atmosphere. The cap portion of the bill comes in in the fact that the number of permits is limited. This cap continues to decrease over the next few decades, forcing businesses that use fossil fuels to either become more efficient or to find alternate ways to power whatever it is they are using the fossil fuels for, because at the end of the day, they will just not be able to do business the same way they are now.
Second, the trade aspect of the bill. Companies can use the permits themselves, bank them for later, or trade (sell) them to other companies who need more than they have. This is a little shout out to free market system creating an incentive to pollute less, thus use less of your own permits.
The money raised by this program, in theory, would be used in part to offset rising energy costs, and in part to fund incentives to alternate energy sources, i.e. wind and solar.
Is this idea perfect, no. Without a doubt this will raise costs, pretty much across the board. It will cost corporations money, money they aren't just going to eat, it will be passed on to consumers. Probably most visibly in the energy industry. Energy will cost more. While I think that will bring about some positive changes: looking for more ways to conserve what you use as a personal household, encouraging the growth of alternate forms of energy (see my post about blue sky from last month), and all together making those that don't care see that there is a need for change; it will without a doubt have bad consequences. Some may already be doing all that they reasonably can to be efficient and resourceful, not wasting etc.. These people will also be hit with energy cost increases. I don't think thats a good thing.
I look at these two ideas, the pros and the cons, and I still have to say that on the whole, the idea sounds pretty good. It is not perfect, and their will be costs. I don't for a second believe the real doom and gloom prognosticators who claim millions of jobs will be lost, etc.. And I guess in the end, I don't believe there is any way to change our countries mindset and wild dependence on fossil fuel driven energy (which I see as a major catastrophe just waiting to happen, as well as being horrible stewardship of the earth), without some cost to the public. It will be hard, and may be extremely hard for some. However, the alternate costs of doing nothing will, in the end, be much, much greater.
So, do I think that this is THE ANSWER? Eh, I'm not going to proclaim this idea perfect, I've heard some variations that people argue would be better, I don't know if they would be or not. But I do believe that in the long run this program would be helpful in setting us down the road to a less fossil fuel dependent energy producing people, which I see as an incredibly important thing. So, I give it my support, with a few reservations.
Just so you can read more of an opposition type article, this guy seems to hate the idea. He lays forth pretty much all of the opposition reasons to oppose the plan. But, to be honest, I guess where I disagree with him the most is that I get the idea while I read his article, that he really doesn't see our current system as that big of a problem, so if nothing changes, oh well, not that big of a deal.
Anyway, thats my take on it.
Anyway, as I knew very little about the bill, I googled it. I found this article that I thought was a fairly simple, and merely informative piece. Its not long, and if you want to get just a rudimentary bare bones idea of the proposal, it will clue you in. It also, thankfully, seems to just provide information, gives both sides stances and the basic arguments for both. Interesting thing is, everyone on this one has a pretty good point. I guess it just comes down to what you think is the most important thing in the debate.
Here is the basic (very basic) idea to the proposal.
First, carbon emissions are damaging to the environment (whether or not you believe in global warming doesn't matter here, you should still be able to, out of intellectual honesty, admit that more emissions are worse, fewer emissions are better). This bill would set up a system of permits allowing companies that use fossil fuels to emit a certain amount of junk into the atmosphere. The cap portion of the bill comes in in the fact that the number of permits is limited. This cap continues to decrease over the next few decades, forcing businesses that use fossil fuels to either become more efficient or to find alternate ways to power whatever it is they are using the fossil fuels for, because at the end of the day, they will just not be able to do business the same way they are now.
Second, the trade aspect of the bill. Companies can use the permits themselves, bank them for later, or trade (sell) them to other companies who need more than they have. This is a little shout out to free market system creating an incentive to pollute less, thus use less of your own permits.
The money raised by this program, in theory, would be used in part to offset rising energy costs, and in part to fund incentives to alternate energy sources, i.e. wind and solar.
Is this idea perfect, no. Without a doubt this will raise costs, pretty much across the board. It will cost corporations money, money they aren't just going to eat, it will be passed on to consumers. Probably most visibly in the energy industry. Energy will cost more. While I think that will bring about some positive changes: looking for more ways to conserve what you use as a personal household, encouraging the growth of alternate forms of energy (see my post about blue sky from last month), and all together making those that don't care see that there is a need for change; it will without a doubt have bad consequences. Some may already be doing all that they reasonably can to be efficient and resourceful, not wasting etc.. These people will also be hit with energy cost increases. I don't think thats a good thing.
I look at these two ideas, the pros and the cons, and I still have to say that on the whole, the idea sounds pretty good. It is not perfect, and their will be costs. I don't for a second believe the real doom and gloom prognosticators who claim millions of jobs will be lost, etc.. And I guess in the end, I don't believe there is any way to change our countries mindset and wild dependence on fossil fuel driven energy (which I see as a major catastrophe just waiting to happen, as well as being horrible stewardship of the earth), without some cost to the public. It will be hard, and may be extremely hard for some. However, the alternate costs of doing nothing will, in the end, be much, much greater.
So, do I think that this is THE ANSWER? Eh, I'm not going to proclaim this idea perfect, I've heard some variations that people argue would be better, I don't know if they would be or not. But I do believe that in the long run this program would be helpful in setting us down the road to a less fossil fuel dependent energy producing people, which I see as an incredibly important thing. So, I give it my support, with a few reservations.
Just so you can read more of an opposition type article, this guy seems to hate the idea. He lays forth pretty much all of the opposition reasons to oppose the plan. But, to be honest, I guess where I disagree with him the most is that I get the idea while I read his article, that he really doesn't see our current system as that big of a problem, so if nothing changes, oh well, not that big of a deal.
Anyway, thats my take on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)