Monday, March 09, 2009

It's done! Obama has reversed Bush's restrictions on Stem Cell Research funding

This was one of President Obama's numerous electoral promises (including removing funding restrictions for abortion clinics, a Stimulus Bill to aid the economy, etc.), and personally I believe it may be his biggest one in terms of potential repercussions if all goes well. While Dubya had restricted Stem Cell Research funding to only 21 or so stem cell lines out of a total of roughly 1,000 possible lines, Obama has now officially killed these stupid ideological restrictions, finally permitting research on this fantastic new gateway to a potentially much better tomorrow.

"The majority of Americans from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research," Obama said. "That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided."

He called on Congress to provide the needed funding even as he asserted the order would never allow human cloning.

"We will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction," he said in the White House ceremony where he was joined by scientists and other supports of the research. "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."

Indeed, our society – any society, in fact – has no place for human cloning, ever. That is one thing I'd never want to see happen in my lifetime: replicates of pre-existing humans. Perhaps if the technology and science was advanced enough to the point where we could safely remove any potential 'chinks and clinks' in the genome and cloning procedures and such, I'd be more lenient, but for now, it's still murkier than the Loch Ness in terms of potential hazards and problems.

Honestly, once someone looks at all the pros versus the cons of Stem Cell Research, I honestly don't understand how any sane and balanced mind (that's not indoctrinated with any bullshit dogma or beliefs, that is) can really be against Stem Cell Research. No-one is being hurt in any way, shape or form, except a bunch of insignificant cells that are unable to feel pain, or even think about feeling pain. And then, this research in itself could lead to some of the greatest scientific and medical breakthroughs in history, potentially curing such disastrous diseases and injuries as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, many (if not all) forms of Cancer, and even regenerate nerve connections to give motion and feeling back to spinal cord injury or illness sufferers. Honestly, how the hell do you say 'no' to that?

Of course, pretty much the sole reason Bush and his Republican ignorant creed had against Stem Cell Research – along with abortion – is that it 'kills human life'. If only someone could walk up to them and hammer some common sense into their unnaturally thick skulls and do us all a favor: human life, as with any life, is insignificant when it's just a freakin' embryo. After all, life itself is nothing more than chemicals interacting with cells and each other, ask any biologist on the freakin' planet for Pete's sake! All that matters is if the human is not just a human, but actually a 'person', someone who can feel, think, perceive, etc. Considering embryos cannot feel, think, or anything at all, killing them is no more important than squashing a grape. (But I'm sure someone will speak up against the needless and vile crushing of grapes somewhere.)

That's the chief problem with Republicans and Conservatives: unable, or even unwilling, to let go of their ancient and outdated values on the significance of human life in any of its forms, and their constant mingling of ideology, especially religion, with science and reality.

Continued ...»

Sunday, March 08, 2009

From the mouth of a Creationist ...

Ever wanted to know exactly why people believe in Creationism over Evolution? This Creationist lists 50 truly excellent and groundbreaking reasons that force him to conclude Evolution is a 'fairy tale for adults' and that Creationism is cold hard fact. THERE.

Seeing as it's quite long, I've included the top 10 most relevant or plain interesting excerpts to give you a taste. ;)

6.) Because I can’t get it through my thick logic-proof skull that evolution refers ONLY to the process of speciation, not to abiogenesis, or planet formation, or big bang cosmology, or whether God exists, or where they buried Jimmy Hoffa, or why the sky is blue, or how many licks it takes to get to the center of a fucking Tootsie Pop.

15.) Because some secretly fabulous closet-dwelling televangelist (who unironically preaches hate towards gays) told me that evolution is Satan’s way of leading me away from God.

16.) Because that same guy (who was also caught snorting blow off a male hooker’s shiny naked ass) told me that God planted those fossils to test my faith.


19.) Because I don’t understand why, if we share common ancestry with chimps, there are still chimps. And when someone with more than three brain cells in their head inevitably replies: "for the same reason Americans share common ancestry with Brits but there are still Brits", I can’t follow the logic. It’s just too big a leap. Who am I, Evil Knievel?

23.) Because the idea that life evolved naturally over billions of years is infinitely less believable than the idea that an 800 year old man crammed two of every species into a giant wooden boat when the entire planet flooded, an event for which there is absolutely no geological evidence whatsoever and also makes no fucking sense at all.

26.) Because the education system failed me miserably.

27.) …and then took a big wet dump on my face.


31.) Because I’m too stupid to realize that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution and is actually a pseudo-scientific bastardization that real science largely rejects.

36.) Because I don’t know that “irreducible complexity” has been debunked a frazillion times by a frazillion different people and is no more credible an argument than “NEEN-er NEEN-er NEEN-er, I’m right and you’re wrong.”

38.) Because I have no imagination, learning is too much effort, I don’t like proven facts, change scares me, and I think deoxyribonucleic acid is something I’m supposed to clean my bathroom floors with.

50.) Because despite the fact that in all my years of life, I have never seen any magic, I still believe magic is the answer to anything I don’t immediately comprehend.

Hold me, I think I'm in love! <3 XD

Continued ...»

Any other child-hearted geeks out there remember this show?

Talk about randomness: this morning I woke up thinking of old songs I haven't heard in a long time, and one in particular got stuck in my head, though being what it is I'm not complaining. It's the theme of a sadly short-lived TV animated series, which I don't think many out there have even ever heard of, much less enjoyed, but when I was a little kid I was a great fan. My mother taped all the shows on an old cassette (which I lost quite some time ago).

There's a time when the moon reveals its face through the clouds
I let out a sigh and want to cry out loud

But deep in my heart, I feel love so alive
In the depths of my soul I know we will survive
I'm the one they would break in their greed and their pride

But deep in my heart, I feel love so alive
In the depths of my soul I know we will survive

Hereby nominated for one of the best animated shows' themes ever! :P

And of course, the video for the show itself ... (Sorry for the poor quality, can't find any better.)


(Seriously though, ain't she got a beautiful voice?)

I've also found another 'version' of the Intro, the Instrumental (just the theme, no vocals), and being a sucker for Instrumentals, I can't resist posting it here as well, now, can I? :P (It's very good, too. Love the percussion fusion with the synths. OH THE NOSTALGIA!)

Seriously, where've all those terrific 90s-era shows gone? I'm not that young dangit, I still remember the joys of this show and others that used to play back then ... Now we've got utter shit like Hannah Montana (IF I HEAR ANOTHER MILEY CYRUS COMMERCIAL ON TV OR RADIO I'LL FUCKING MURDER HER) and such bullshit. Very, very depressing, what kids are growing up with these days. No wonder they all seem to be morons.

Back when I used to draw (you know, before I discovered da PCz and da Interwebz and got hooked like a junkie mainlining heroin) this was by far one of my favorite things I'd just spend days and days drawing. I even went out at Halloween disguised as her ... thereby establishing the rumor that I was gay and very lonely. >_<

I wasn't gay.

Continued ...»

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Film Review: 'The Core' – Scientific Review

Film Review: Sci-Fi • Disaster (2003)
'The Core'
Written by Joé McKen on Saturday, March 07, 2009


Major Rebecca Childs (Hilary Swank) learns there are some obstacles you just can't beat (though not many) in Jon Amiel’s 2003 The Core.

(NOTE – This is a special review that I’ve divided in two parts: the actual film review, detailing and reviewing the film itself, the characters, plot, etc.; and the scientific aspects of the film, detailing what’s acceptable and what’s just ludicrous to the point of hysterical laughter. I’ve made a separate page for each section.)

Section II/II: Scientific Review of The Core

SPOILER WARNING – This section is a full description of much of the film's more important points, so if you don't want some things to be spoiled for you, read no further!

This is a scientific dissection of the film and it's ups and downs, so if you don't bother to read moderately long texts or don't really care for science, this isn't for you. Also, I'll only detail the minimum, so if you don't understand something you're welcome to do your own research. Wikipedia's always a good place to start. ;) Much if the information in this section is a combination of my own findings, and mostly what I learned from Astronomer Phil Plait's own wonderful scientific dissection of The Core over at his site/blog, BadAstronomy.com.

This film contains both adequate and acceptable bits of science, and other (more) bits that just seem rather off-putting in terms of accuracy, so in that spirit I've separated this dissection into three parts: the Good, the Uncertain, and the Bad.

Color-code key:
Green = Entirely/mostly accurate and acceptable
Blue = Borderline accurate/false (has some truth and some inaccuracy to it)
Red = False & inaccurate


The Good

Earth's moving molten iron outer core can change and lead to the collapse, temporary or permanent, of the electromagnetic field
The film states that the Earth's outer liquid spinning core can change or stop in one way or another, which could trigger the Earth's EM field to collapse, either temporarily or permanently.

• This is actually (mostly) true, and in fact, the Earth's magnetic poles (which are of course governed by the EM field) have actually suddenly reversed several times in the planet's history. This is not well understood, and it seems to happen every few hundred thousand years or so.

• Note that life still exists on Earth though, so obviously cosmic radiation didn't kill the Earth's life systems during any of these 'frequent' reversals.

• In fact, this scenario is a large part of the popular 'Doomsday 2012' hype that states the end of the world will occur at the Winter Solstice of 2012 (December 21, 2012, to be precise). One of the more popular scenarios is another sudden pole reversal; in fact, this is founded in scientific fact, as many scientists do indeed estimate that a polar reversal could quite possibly occur in that timeframe. Considering we don't yet know the true effects of pole reversals, this could be either ineffective, or catastrophic (though not an extinction-level event).

Current deepest hole ever dug was 7 miles deep
In the movie, Dr. Keys argues against the idea of travelling to the Earth's core, saying the deepest humans had ever gotten through the crust was about seven miles, with a two-inch drill bit.

• I don't know about the 'two-inch drill bit', but the seven miles bit is entirely accurate. He's undoubtedly referring to the Kola Superdeep Borehole, a Russian project that was to dig the deepest hole they could (I can't find any website listing their potential motivations for doing so).

Using a peach as a model of the Earth's interior design
In his explanation of how bad the Earth's electromagnetic field disintegrating would be for the Earth and anything on it, Dr. Keys illustrates the Earth's interior with a peach he cuts in half: the skin is the crust, the meat is the mantle, and the pit is the core.

• This is actually a very accurate representation of the Earth's interior compared to scale. The skin is about as thick as the crust would be for an Earth that size, and so is the mantle, and the core (the outer core in this case). (Not sure the Earth would be as tasty, though.)


The Uncertain

Space Shuttle rotation
In an early scene, we see a NASA Space Shuttle in orbit quickly flip rightside-up from upside-down relative to the Earth with its little jets, in about 10 seconds.

• The jets ('reaction control systems') aren't that powerful in real life, and it takes quite a while longer for a Space Shuttle to flip a whole 180 degrees, somewhere in the range of between 20 seconds and nearly two minutes.

• However, this is a movie with an audience after all, so it's understandable that even if the writers knew this, they could've just sped it up somewhat so we don't spend over a minute slowly watching the Space Shuttle right itself.

Earth's collapsing electromagnetic field opens door to deadly cosmic rays
As the Earth's electromagnetic field slowly but surely becomes unstable and eventually collapses, deadly cosmic rays will reach the Earth and kill everyone.

• 'Cosmic rays' is a very general term used to designate everything that's whizzing around in Space, from protons (light) to helium (mostly-harmless gas). Most of these are actually quite inoffensive to humans and the Earth and probably wouldn't even be noticed should they hit.

• There are some cosmic rays that are actually dangerous or lethal to life, but even without the electromagnetic field, most would be stopped by the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in low damage, if any.

• There are, however, extremely powerful Gamma Ray bursts that occasionally go off in Space, shooting horrendously massive amounts of cosmic rays that would completely wipe away the Earth's electromagnetic field and part of its atmosphere, and, indeed, kill much of life on Earth, depending on the proximity to the Gamma Ray blast. This scenario is suspected of being responsible for one of Earth's largest-ever mass extinctions, the Ordovician-Silurian extinction event. Thankfully, these are extremely rare, as demonstrated that only one has ever hit the Earth in the planet's existence, so it's safe to assume we won't have to worry about another one anytime soon.

Earth's spinning molten iron outer core moves at '1,000 miles per hour'
The film states that the Earth's spinning molten iron outer core rotates at about '1,000 miles per hour'.

• No, it's slower by about half. It's actually estimated at about 550 mph, considering it takes about 24 for the mass to do a full rotation across the outer core's roughly 2,200-mile-wide radius.

• It's possible the line was just used as a hyperbole meaning 'high speed', such as when one would say 'I broke the sound barrier getting here!' to mean they just drove really fast.

Super-suits that can withstand the mantle's heat and pressure inside a geode
The Terranauts' suits can withstand the incredible pressures (estimated in the film as roughly 800,000 pounds per square inch) and temperatures (roughly 5,000 degrees, in the film), yet still allow the crew a fair amount of agility and flexibility.

• Of course, realistically this is simply ludicrous. Any suit built to withstand those sorts of pressures and temperatures would a) be impossible with today's materials and technology, and b) even if they were built, they'd be incredibly tough and thick with insulation, rendering flexibility virtually nonexistent. You'd be in a sarcophagus. Conversely, any suit allowing you to bend and move would be too thin to provide any sort of insulation or protection against the heat or pressures.

• But of course, this is Sci-Fi, and naturally we had to see the Terranauts get out of the ship at least once or twice while they're inside the Earth, so of course some leniency can be expected.

A gigantic geode deep in the Earth's mantle
Deep in the mantle, the crew fall into a gigantic geode, thousands of feet across.

• How could such a large empty space survive, or even form to begin with, in a place as extreme as the mantle?

• HOWEVER, the writer of The Core himself states that scientists have once found a mile-long geode in the shallow depths of the mantle, which, if true, would certainly prove this as possible and imply that perhaps even larger geodes could be possible. However, there are no other links or mentions of this find anywhere else I could find, so one should perhaps take this statement with a grain of salt until it's confirmed. Read this interview here. (Warning: lots of explicit language that may offend certain folks.)

Bodies float on magma
In the geode scene, when Commander Iverson is killed by a falling rock through his helmet, he falls into the magma and is sinks into it.

• The human body is roughly the same density as water, whereas magma, being molten rock, is roughly the same density as, well, rock. Rock being denser than water, Iverson's body should've floated on top of the magma instead of sinking into it, like a cork would float in water while a rock would sink. Density matters.

• However, it was possible that Iverson's body actually burned and melted away by the magma, in which case what we see isn't actually the body sinking into the molten rock, but burning away until there's nothing left. It's hard/impossible to tell which for now, so I'm labelling this as 'uncertain'.

How the Golden Gate collapsed after melting under a microwave beam
In the movie, a sudden ray of microwave radiation hits San Francisco through a hole in the Earth's EM shield, cutting right across the Golden Gate Bridge's central span, melting the deck and the cables until it collapses, the towers leading into the span.

• This contradicts how a suspension bridge actually works. The cables and their supporting pylons are continually under an immense amount of load-bearing stress as they carry the entire weight of the deck below. If the deck suddenly collapses and the supporting cables suddenly snapped, the cables would violently recoil outwards, towards the shores where they're anchored at, which would pull at the towers to bend towards the shores instead of into the gap. Imagine you playing Tug-o'-War against a tree. If the rope suddenly snapped, would you be sent flying towards the tree, or in the direction you were pulling?

• However, it's possible the destroyed bridge shot was meant to imply that the towers themselves had also partially melted and weakened, causing them to lean in one direction or another without just snapping off.

Multiple bombs would create a ripple effect in a single direction, pushing the outer core liquid to rotate again
The crew's 'Plan D[1]' (long story) ends with them leaving behind five individual 250-megaton bombs (which, combined, formed the original 1,000-megaton bomb) which, detonated at precise intervals, would create a converging ripple effect through the core and restart the spinning motion.

• I'm no genius in physics, but this seems faulty to me. I'm marking this as 'uncertain' for now because I simply don't know if this could work and I don't really have a model of the core to test it on, but my guess would be it would just be like 5 cases of the original bomb: the ripples, even from 5 separate bombs, would just bleed away in all directions inconsequentially.


The Bad

Space Shuttle sonic boom
In the Space Shuttle off-course scene early in the movie, as the shuttle roars over a baseball match in downtown L.A., a sonic boom is heard.

• Sonic booms only occur when an object surpasses the speed of sound. That Shuttle was going much slower than Mach 1, so no sonic boom would've been heard.

Space Shuttle off-course
In the Space Shuttle scene early in the movie, a momentary glitch in the Shuttle's navigation and positioning systems (GPS on overdrive) result in the shuttle being off-course by 130 miles.

• There are numerous tracking methods employed to locate a Space Shuttle, far more than a single transponder on the Shuttle itself. If the glitch only occurred on the Shuttle to the Shuttle's systems but not to Ground Control, Ground Control should still have kept a location on the Shuttle quite accurately, and it would've never gone off-course.

Earth's molten iron outer core has stopped rotating
The cause for the movie's scenario of the Earth's EM field to start to collapse is that the Earth's outer core, which is a ball of molten iron the size of Mars spinning at 1,000 miles an hour, somehow stopped spinning, all of a sudden.

• This is simply impossible. The amount of energy held in such a vast moving body as the outer core is equal to roughly five trillion megaton nuclear bombs. Logically, it would require the energy of five trillion nuclear bombs to stop the core completely in its tracks – and probably five more trillion bombs to start it all moving again as before.

• Also, even if it did happen, all that energy would have to go somewhere (basic physics: energy never 'disappears', it just goes elsewhere, changes form). If the core suddenly stopped spinning, the 5 trillion megatons of energy would logically go into the Earth's crust, likely obliterating it into shreds, vaporizing all the oceans on Earth ten times over, etc. Cosmic radiation would be the very least of our problems.

Earth's electromagnetic field is created by a spinning molten iron outer core
The movie states that the Earth's EM field is created as a result of the liquid outer core spinning in one direction at roughly equal and constant velocity all over.

• Yes, magnetism is caused by moving charges. In that sense, a spinning ball of molten iron the size of Mars would indeed create a massive electromagnetic field, but that's not how it's done in Earth's case.

• The Earth's outer core isn't spinning in a single direction; it's actually extremely complicated, with currents and counter-currents of ionized iron and other materials all interacting together to create Earth's EM field. It's less like a fluid highway, more like Rush Hour in Mexico City with cars zipping everywhere in 'controlled chaos'.

• If the writers had tried to be more accurate, they could've simply imagined a scenario where these currents had somehow been destabilized greatly, causing the imminent disruption and collapse of the EM field. This would've been far more plausible.

Earth's electromagnetic field shields us from deadly microwave radiation
In the film, even worse than cosmic rays would be microwave radiation, which would literally 'cook' the planet, killing all life and destroying the atmosphere for good.

• Microwaves aren't actually dangerous at all; they're basically light. In extremely concentrated doses they can cause damage (such as sticking one's hand in a microwave like a friggin' idiot), but microwave radiation from the Sun or from space is extremely diluted and low-intensity, as it makes up very little of the Sun's output. Even if all microwave radiation in nearby Space were to hit us, we'd likely never even notice.

• Also, the Earth's electromagnetic field, being electric and magnetic, only affects rays and matter made from charged particles. Microwaves have absolutely no charge, so they aren't even slowed down by the EM field. It's as though it weren't even there.

A single 1,000-megaton nuclear bomb could push the outer core liquid in one direction and start it spinning again
The original plan was to detonate a single thousand-megaton nuclear bomb in the outer core, which would give just enough push to start the core rotating again in one direction.

• This is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who's ever thrown a rock into a swimming pool knows the water didn't suddenly start rotating in one direction, but that the ripples went out in all directions at equal speed. No single/simple impact, bomb or otherwise, could made a liquid spin in a single direction without sending equally-powerful counter-shockwaves in all other directions. This would just create ripples an waves in the outer core (not necessarily a good thing) and that's it.

• Even if it was possible to push a liquid in a circular container to move in one direction, how could they possibly choose which way the bomb would result in the liquid turning?

Virgil's emergency compartment ejection mechanism
The Virgil is designed so that if a compartment is damaged, it can be automatically jettisoned via an emergency ejection mechanism, preventing damage to the remaining compartments, 'sorta like the keys on a key-ring'.

• This seems very poorly thought-out to me. Okay, so a compartment is damaged. Who's to say it would always be the last compartment? If a central compartment was damaged and was ejected, seeing as the ship is essentially a long cigar tube, any other compartments behind it would also be ejected, damaged or not. They would lose the entire ship for one single compartment being ejected, so this seems like a huge shortsighted error.

The Coliseum (and other structures) explodes after being supercharged by lightening
When Rome is hit by a supercharged lightening storm, the Coliseum is rapidly hit by many jolts of lightening until it 'overcharges' and finally explodes violently into rubble.

• The writer himself admitted, in the interview posted earlier, that this was just for the sake of special effects, and that a more realistic result would be the structure cracking and shattering and merely crumbling instead of actually exploding. Same goes for all those other buidings and statues shown exploding in this scene.

After being punctured, the geode slowly fills with magma
When the Virgil broke through the massive geode's protective cobalt cocoon, the exterior magma slowly opened a relatively small hole through which magma simply poured, slowly filling the geode.

• I very highly doubt the plausibility of this. If they'd punctured an opening large enough for that sort of flow, the integrity of the entire cocoon would've been compromised and it would've all just completely shattered and disappeared under the immense pressures of the mantle magma outside. Same thing as striking a small hole in a window: instead of a small hole, the whole thing cracks and weakens, and eventually shatters.

• Of course, one can understand this was done simply for time restraints; the characters needed enough time to start the ship so they could escape.

Virgil crew communicating with Mission Control through mantle and crust
Throughout much of their subterannean adventure, the Virgil crew are able to communicate with Mission Control on the surface with crystal clarity in transmission and reception.

• Again, this is just Hollywood distorting what in reality would be simply impossible for the sake of the movie's needs. Characters need to communicatem, after all.

The Virgil emerging at Hawaii between two tectonic plates
After finally restarting the core, the Virgil makes it out through an opening between two tectonic plates somewhere near Hawaii.

• Basic geography: Hawaii is located in the center of a tectonic oceanic plate, over a thousand miles away from any faultlines. Its volcanoes are caused by a constant mantle plume, a giant magmatic pocket of sorts that spawns and feeds the islands' volcanoes. There is no way the Virgil could've made it through miles of solid crust rock without its lasers, unless it somehow found a magma chamber and got 'erupted' out of a volcano, which wasn't the case.

• Incorrectly regarded as a goof: many criticize the Virgil making it through the mantle and crust without its lasers functioning (it was running on limited power after Dr. Keys had rigged the ship to be powered solely from its Unobtanium shell). Again in the interview linked previously, the writer explains the ship actually followed magmatic flows through the crust, which were more intense than previously due to the core suddenly spinning again. They just 'went with the flow', thereby not requiring their lasers.



If anyone finds a problem with the movie I forgot to mention or didn't find myself, or if something I 'corrected' here is actually wrong, do let me know, will you? Thanks. :)

Return to Part I/II: Film review of The Core

Edit – thanks to Aimee for a quick correction.

* * * * *
[1] Plan A: use the single 1,000-megaton bomb to restart the core (failed). Plan B: trigger Destiny (Deep Earth Seismic Trigger Initiative – DESTINI) to try and restart the core's spinning (sabotaged by 'Rat' the cracker). Plan C: 'Restart the core somehow' = using the multiple-bomb scenario. Plan D: same as C, but sabotaging Virgil's emergency ejection mechanisms to eject individual compartments with the bombs in them (success!).

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'The Core' – 7.0/10

Film Review: Sci-Fi • Disaster (2003)
'The Core'
Written by Joé McKen on Saturday, March 07, 2009


Major Rebecca Childs (Hilary Swank) learns there are some obstacles you just can't beat (though not many) in Jon Amiel’s 2003 The Core.

(NOTE – This is a special review that I’ve divided in two parts: the actual film review, detailing and reviewing the film itself, the characters, plot, etc.; and the scientific aspects of the film, detailing what’s acceptable and what’s just ludicrous to the point of hysterical laughter. I’ve made a separate page for each section.)

Section I/II: Film Review of The Core

Let’s play a little game called ‘Solve the Riddle’. Here’re the clues: a bunch of people, within a few city blocks in downtown Boston, all hit the ground dead in less than a second; a swarm of birds suddenly goes berserk in London’s Trafalgar Square as though they all instantly went blind; and a NASA Space Shuttle experiences electronic interference that results in them trying to find a landing spot in downtown Los Angeles.

If you’re like me, you’ll probably be thinking ‘terrorist attacks?’ or such. But if you’re Dr. Joshua Keys (Aaron Eckhart), a geophysicist college professor, your guess is that the Earth’s core has stopped spinning, causing the Earth’s electromagnetic field to collapse. Rather rash a judgment to make, no?

Actually, that’s exactly the scenario governing Paramount Pictures’ 2003 flick The Core. The film is rather eclectic in its own way: a mixture of solid acting, an endurable script, some fairly ho-hum special effects, an insane plot that belongs to the realms of Jules Verne’s wildest dreams, some genuinely good humor at times, and a motley mixture of science ranging from feasible to utterly ridiculous.

The movie starts off as per the formula of pretty much all such disaster films, with quick scenes of some seemingly random and isolated incidents here and there. Then we slowly but surely are introduced to those who will become the central characters. Now that Dr. Josh Keys has a hypothesis as to what’s going on, he approaches Dr. Conrad Zimsky (Stanley Tucci), a self-absorbed caricature of Carl Sagan, with his results, which leads to the pair explaining to the military how the Earth without its electromagnetic field is essentially doomed in less than a year.

Deciding they need to reach the Earth’s core (an idea that anyone with a minimal understanding of geology and geophysics will simply heartily laugh at, perhaps to the point of tears), Drs. Keys and Zimsky, along with the military, visit reclusive scientist Dr. Ed ‘Braz’ Brazzleton (Delroy Lindo) in his desert hangar, where he’s spent the last few years designing and building a subterranean vehicle that could, in theory, reach the Earth’s core, constructed of a 37-syllable material he dubs 'Unobtanium' which, in theory, only gets stronger as its exposed to higher levels of heat and pressure. He and his ship, appropriately christened the Virgil, are recruited by the military to plan a mission to reach the Earth’s core, and then launch a thousand-megaton nuclear bomb to, somehow, restart the core’s spinning, saving the Earth from being roasted by the Sun’s cosmic radiations.

I need some Tylenol. Can’t stand much more of this laughter-induced headache.

Meanwhile, the aforementioned Space Shuttle manages to land with minimal damage in L.A.’s river system, all thanks to the quick thinking and skills of Major Rebecca ‘Beck’ Childs (the pretty Hilary Swank). Instead of having her career terminated as she’d feared, she’s instead reassigned, along with her Commander, Robert ‘Bob’ Iverson (Bruce Green), to the Navigator’s post of the aforementioned Deep Earth mission, where she meets her fellow Terranauts (her term).

The last addition to the team is beaker-nosed Donald ‘Rat’ Finch (DJ Qualls), called the world’s best hacker. (Pfft – if they knew anything about hacking, he’d be called a cracker, not a hacker.) His role in this shindig? Controlling the flow of information on the entire fucking Internet to try and prevent panic across the world. (What, are phone lines, ‘snail mail’ and word-of-mouth systems all down?)

This is where I’ll leave the plot of the movie hanging, for two reasons: one, this review is running a bit long already, and two, it’s so twisting and complicated you’d need a novella to detail it anyway. There are many things to be said about this movie, ranging from praise to tearing it up with a machine gun, so I’ll try to wade through it with a modicum of coherence.

The visuals are a bit outdated, even by 2003’s standards; nothing horrible perhaps, but they do seem to be about 10 years overdue for an overhaul or something. The score, from Christopher Young, isn’t one of my favorites, but it fits the movie’s mood perfectly with tense strings and ambient horns, coupled with the occasional bout of percussion.

Several seem to criticize the acting or characterization in this film; I dunno what they’re talking about, as most of the characters I saw in this movie are rock-solid and quite credible in their dialogue and mannerisms. Eckhart plays the know-it-all handsome Dr. Josh Keys, while the pretty Hilary Swank incarnates ‘Beck’ Childs, who refuses to be beat by obstacles ranging from dodging Everest-sized diamonds to tying a Windsor; I also particularly liked the arrogant and egocentric Dr. Zimsky, who you can’t help but like even though his irritating self-concern. Others however, such as Delroy Lindo as ‘Braz’ and Tchéky Karyo as Josh’s friend Serge, are utterly forgettable.

However, that’s pretty much where the praise ends for now. One of the movie’s biggest problems is that it reeks of inexperience or uncertainty on the part of the director, Jon Amiel. The movie’s pacing and editing is wonky and unbalanced, with quick cuts spanning hours or days followed by scenes that seem to drag on and on, and much of the story, even outside of its scientific goofery, seems quite haphazard in writing and plotting.

Now normally this here is where I’d launch into details and criticism about the plot and what’s feasible and not, but I’m saving that for that second page I keep mentioning (you know, this one), so I guess that’s pretty much it for this movie’s review for now.

Overall, this is a perfectly decent action film to just lay back and watch with some popcorn or chips at hand, but don’t be expecting too much out of it or you’ll be left embittered. I myself had a perfectly good time watching it, it’s a good distraction from the dullness of everyday life, and some of the special effects, such as a certain famous bridge being devastated, are quite entertaining. This movie is worth your time if you’ve got two hours or so to kill, but you should perhaps leave it at a rental unless you’re a buff for these sorts of movies.

For giving us an asinine story completed with good acting and shaky science, I give Paramount Pictures’ The Core 7.0 exploding Coliseums out of 10.

Cast
Dr. Joshua ‘Josh’ Keys: Aaron Eckhart • Maj. Rebecca ‘Beck’ Childs: Hilary Swank • Dr. Ed ‘Braz’ Brazzleton: Delroy Lindo • Dr. Conrad Zimsky: Stanley Tucci • Theodore Donald ‘Rat’ Finch: DJ Qualls • Cmdr. Robert Iverson: Bruce Greenwood • Serge: Tchéky Karyo • Gen. Thomas Purcell: Richard Jenkins
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Jon Amiel • Writer(s): Cooper Layne, John Rogers • Original Score: Christopher Young
General Information
Distributed by: Paramount Pictures • Released: March 28, 2003 • Running Time: 135 mins • Budget: US$85 Million (production) + US$30 Million (advertising) • Rated: PG-13

Head to Part II/II: Scientific Review of The Core

Continued ...»

This is one inmate who didn't think very far ahead ...

One of the things I enjoy reading about are stupid criminals who just don't seem to have a clue as to what the hell they're getting into. Now, the following criminal was either very intelligent but unlucky, or very stupid and/or shortsighted. You decide.

WOODBINE, Ga. -- Authorities say they arrested an escaped jail inmate trying to sneak back into the lockup with cigarettes allegedly stolen from a nearby store.

Sheriff Tommy Gregory said Saturday that 25-year-old Harry Jackson had opened a door to the exercise yard and climbed the outer fence.

Deputies found a jail door unlocked early Saturday and were looking for the inmate. They spotted Jackson trying to come back in and found 14 packs of cigarettes they believe were stolen from a convenience store about a block away.

I can't tell if the fact that he tried to return to his cell, once he'd freakin' gotten out, is a sign of intelligence or plain shortsightedness. Either he realized that breaking out and running away would only result in a manhunt for him that would almost certainly eventually find him and haul his ass back to jail, with additional charges to boot, or ... he simply didn't realize that he'd just broken out of the jail to begin with, perhaps too fixated on his upcoming nicotine fix. (Another reason to quit smoking, folks. :P)

Oh, and why was he in jail in the first place? Possession of a 'controlled substance' (jeez, can't you just say 'drugs', you censorship-happy twits?) and violating probation. Rather light as far as charges go. Now he's seeing breaking out of jail and burglary added to that, which is certain to keep him in for quite a while longer.

So, folks, is he too smart for his own good, or too dumb for his own good? You decide. (You know which way I'm leaning towards.)

Continued ...»

Thursday, March 05, 2009

9-year-old-Mother story: Excommunicated!

Just a few hours ago I commented on a report that the Brazil Roman Catholic Church was outraged after a nine-year-old girl, raped by her stepfather, had fallen pregnant with twins, which she had then obviously aborted. Well, there's a new update, one I'm not certain whether to laugh at or start planning a shooting (k-i-d-d-i-n-g): the grand ol' Church has now excommunicated the girl and her mother for the abortion.

Despite the nature of the case, the church had to hold its line against abortion, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said in an interview aired Thursday by Globo television.

"The law of God is higher than any human laws," he said. "When a human law — that is, a law enacted by human legislators — is against the law of God, that law has no value. The adults who approved, who carried out this abortion have incurred excommunication."

Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao rebuked the archbishop, saying, "I'm shocked by two facts: by what happened to the girl and by the position of the archbishop, who in saying he defends life puts another at risk."

Not to be callous, but ... what are you so shocked about, Minister Temporao? That a cult bent on spreading ignorance and intolerance to garner membership from the masses would expel folks from their ranks for not obeying their ridiculous laws/guidelines/whatever? I'm actually disappointed that I didn't see this coming myself, I'm usually good at predicting this stuff.

Anyway, I'm kinda torn between outrage and derision at the moment, though I suppose I'll just end up laughing at it like I usually do with these stories. While normally I'd be incensed at the idea of a group or organization expelling someone for doing what they should have done in the first place, I then realize this is the Church we're talking about; not only is it better the less members they have, but then, being outcast from a cult like that ... I can't really see anything overly negative. I just hope the mother and her child see it that way, though – for all I know they could actually want to be a part of the Church, which would make this an even thornier issue than it already is.

Continued ...»

The Church is all for 9-year-olds becoming mothers now

Well, Brazil's Roman Catholic Church at least, according to this report. Get this: suspected of being raped by her stepfather (great ...), a nine-year-old girl (... whoa) recently fell pregnant (aw shit ...) ... with twins (... again, whoa). Obviously she had an abortion – no kid should be allowed to become a parent at NINE YEARS OLD (although a 12-yearer did become a father a while back in Britain). Well, apparently that's all wrong for the Church, who are now stirring shit up when they state the poor girl should've kept the kids and gone through a cesarean to boot.

Disgusting.

Catholics, but judges can make exceptions if the mother’s life is in danger or the fetus has no chance of survival. Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the pregnancy, which was in its 15th week, posed a serious risk to the girl, who weighs 80 pounds. But Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, said the girl should have carried the twins to term and had a Caesarean section. “It’s the law of God: Do not kill,” he said in comments reported by the newspaper O Globo.

Typical goddamned Church response. Who cares about the stupid little girl? Who cares that she was raped and got pregnant (not to mention it's incest so there's a very real risk of genetic defects, sterility at best, in the kids)? Her unborn babies are worth so much more than her own little life, just make her go through the hell that is a pregnancy at that age, undergo a potentially dangerous surgical operation to deliver the kids, and that's all! After all, life is sacred!

This sort of stuff is why the Church is becoming more and more hated, and they're too fucking stupid and close-minded to even see it, the dumb bastards. Sorry, but this sort of stuff really gets my juices flowing. She's NINE YEARS OLD for fuck's sake, terminate the stupid pregnancy and let her live her child's life! Christ ...!

Continued ...»

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Protesters decry 30-feet-limit distance from Scientology compound

Man, anytime anyone tells anyone else to fuck off, you can basically set your watch by the prediction that the person being told to sodomize themself will cry out "Freedom of Speech!" like a true ignorant imbecile. This is another one of those cases: a bunch of presumably bored and self-righteous protesters in Riverside, California, are complaining about a new law that prohibits protesters and assorted riffraff from getting any nearer than 30 feet from a private residence's boundaries. A detail worth mentioning: the residence in question they're attempting to picket is part of the Church of Scientology.

Reporting from Riverside -- Protesters targeting a Church of Scientology compound near Hemet now face stricter limits on how they can conduct demonstrations, according to a new ordinance adopted Tuesday by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.

The measure, which critics say violates the 1st Amendment and gives the church special treatment, requires anyone protesting near private residences to stay at least 30 feet from the property line.

Graham Berry, a lawyer and one of the protesters, told the board that the ordinance "does not pass constitutional muster."

"It is vague, ambiguous and unenforceable," he said.

Clearly this Graham Berry, in addition to being a meddling fool, is an incompetent and ignorant one at that. What exactly is 'vague, ambiguous and unenforceable' about 'Stay away from any private residence by at least 30 feet'? Some lawyer.

Of course, some would cry out 'there's a difference!' because it's a domain of Scientology they're protesting out; I call 'bullshit'. Sure, Scientology is as ridiculous a religion-slash-cult as they come, but I don't see what's so horrible about them or their practices to warrant morons picketing at their doors whenever they feel like. Perhaps if they kidnapped and ate babies for lunch and had a 'fur-only' policy I'd be inclined to let them be swamped by angry protesters, but if they're minding their own damned business and aren't hurting anyone, there's simply no reason to picket.

Unlike what that moronic Berry states, this has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, which is only about allowing people to speak their minds, and has everything to do with Freedom of Privacy/Intimacy (whichever word fits best) – those idiots can say and picket whatever they like, as long as they just don't make a freakin' scene and disturb people. In my book, Freedom of Speech and whatever ends when it starts infringing on the rights of others, no matter whom it may apply to/for, and that's final.

Continued ...»

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Where the Street Had No Name ... now has a name

Okay, corny title, sorry. But U2 just had a New York City street temporarily named after them! :P

To celebrate the release of the band's 12th studio album and their appearance every night this week on CBS's "The Late Show with David Letterman," part of 53rd street in Midtown Manhattan -- where Letterman films -- was renamed U2 Way.

"The Beatles had Penny Lane, Elvis lived on the end of Lonely Street," U2 singer Bono told reporters and fans on the corner of Broadway and 53rd Street.

"We're here somewhere between 10th Avenue and funky, funky Broadway, somewhere south of Duke Ellington Way and north of Joey Ramone Place we find ourselves ... where the streets have no name," he said.

The renaming of the block of 53rd Street between Broadway and 8th Avenue will last one week, Bloomberg said.

Admittedly, they could've found something a little more creative and less frankly 'corny' than 'U2 Way' (don't ask me for inspiration though o_o), but hey, it could be named 'Asscrack Boulevard' and I'd still be all for it, if it has something to do with U2. :P That's where fanboyism will lead you, I suppose.

Too bad it'll just last one week, though. :(

Continued ...»

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Not that I'm racist or anything ...

... It's just a funny reality. :P

Continued ...»

Washington state is about to legalize "Death with Dignity"

Another move forwards for proponents of the Right to Die. The state of Washington is about to allow 'Death with Dignity' which, after plenty of red tape and procedural complications, will finally allow terminally-ill patients to end their lives sooner and avoid unnecessary pain and torment.

OLYMPIA, Wash. - Terminally ill patients with less than six months to live will soon be able to ask their doctors to prescribe them lethal medication in Washington state.

However, the legality isn't the real issue at stake here, as the article then goes on about how doctors, for reasons either personal or professional, are disinclined to end a patient's life even if it's really in that patient's best interest.

But even though the "Death with Dignity" law takes effect Thursday, people who might seek the life-ending prescriptions could find their doctors conflicted or not willing to write them.

Many doctors are hesitant to talk publicly about where they stand on the issue, said Dr. Tom Preston, a retired cardiologist and board member of Compassion & Choices, the group that campaigned for and supports the law.

"There are a lot of doctors, who in principle, would approve or don't mind this, but for a lot of social or professional reasons, they don't want to be involved," he said.

Of course I perfectly understand how some doctors would be hesitant or simply refusing to end a patient's life if that doctor is simply too put-off by the idea of killing someone; hell, even if one of my loved ones were ailing and dying, I know I would want to end their sufferings, but more likely than not I'd have some serious hesitation issues with terminally ending their life. It's plain human nature: normal people don't like to kill, even if it's theoretically in the 'victim''s best interest.

I can just hope, of course, that most doctors are able to overlook and overcome this initial disturbance and hesitation, and are able to let reason shine through: they're not killing them per se; they truly are helping them. (Plus, this isn't even a rationalization, it's plain and simple truth.)

The vigors for finally being eligeable for this ending-of-life thing are rather lengthy and tedious, though.

Under the Washington law, any patient requesting fatal medication must be at least 18 years old, declared competent and a state resident. The patient would have to make two oral requests, 15 days apart, and submit a written request witnessed by two people, one of which must not be a relative, heir, attending doctor, or connected with a health facility where the requester lives.

Two doctors must certify that the patient has a terminal condition and six months or less to live.

I understand one has to be absolutely certain that the want to die so it's not just some stupid passing whim, and that they have to be terminal, but really, those regulations just seem a bit excessive to me. Agreed with the two statements and having at least one witness, along with of course a confirmed diagnosis and 'window-of-life-left', but that's really where I'd stop it. Just one reliable witness and one credible doctor's diagnosis seems perfectly enough to me. I'd also eliminate the 'limit' on the six-months-left-to-live bit; what if the patient has more than six months left, but is gonna be in pain and torment long before? There seems to be a logical fallacy here.

I understand the necessity of boundful protections and clauses ... This though, I'm less lenient towards.

Under the Oregon and Washington laws, physicians and pharmacists are not required to write or fill lethal prescriptions if they are opposed to the law. Some Washington hospitals are opting out of participation, which precludes their doctors from participating on hospital property.

I can understand individual doctors and practitioners refusing to end patients' lives, but when entire hospitals say 'no', I call 'bullshit'. It's the choice of the patient and the individuals who may be involved in the willful dying, not the establishment's. Imagine Right-to-Die being legal in your state and you're a perfectly fit patient for that and you wish to die, yet you're in the wrong hospital due to chances outside your control ... That's ridiculous.

(And anyway, how the hell can a hospital say 'no' to state legislation? I didn't know hospitals were of any authority when it came to state-wide law, so either this is illegal on their part and I wish them to be bitchslapped, or this is legal, and I'm dumbfounded.)

Continued ...»