Red Dawn, Remade!

They have remade Red Dawn.

I probably shouldn’t write about this movie, which is just now getting its release.  I haven’t seen it, yet.  Of course, as an aficionado of the original movie, which featured some really up-and-coming actors while at their seeming youngest, I will be comparing the original film very closely with this one, when I finally see it.  But the remake already has red flags going up in my mind, no pun intended.

North Koreans?  Are you kidding me?

The original film had a degree of believability about it, with a combined Soviet/Cuban invasion of the mainland USA.  At the time, Russia was the Soviet Union, and had the military clout to actually pull off a credible invasion, and with a satellite state like Cuba right off the southern border of the US, this was completely believable.  And not only that, the story and the actors were damned fine and believable, too.  Patrick Swayze at his best, in my opinion.

But this film, while it still features a communist invasion of the United States, sacrifices believability for that big foreign market in China.  This movie was filmed under the premise of a Red Chinese invasion of the United States.  This is at least a plausible premise.  But they changed this in post-production to a North Korean invasion!  Here’s what Wikipedia says:

In March 2011 . . . MGM changed the villains in its Red Dawn remake from Chinese to North Korean in order to maintain access to China’s lucrative box office. The changes reportedly cost less than $1 million and involve changing an opening sequence summarizing the story’s fictional backdrop, re-editing two scenes and using digital technology to transform many Chinese symbols to Korean. The film’s producer Trip Vinson stated, “We were initially very reluctant to make any changes, but after careful consideration we constructed a way to make a scarier, smarter and more dangerous Red Dawn that we believe improves the movie”.

I am going to have to see this film in order to determine if they’ve made it scarier, smarter or dangerouser.  Perhaps they have.  But what they have done is to throw REALITY under the bus.

North Korea can’t even pull off an invasion of South Korea, and they’re right next door.

So why would anyone think they could pull one off against the United States?  I mean, this is patently ridiculous, unless they can come up with some alternate history in the back story.  Today’s North Korea has a military that, in sheer numbers at least, is one of the largest in the world.  The estimate is that they have about 1 million men and women on active duty, and 8 million in reserve.  That sounds like a lot, but for the purpose of successfully invading the United States they would need a lot of air transport.  And the air transport would need some degree of protection from opposing air defenses.  And this is where it all breaks down.

North Korea’s air force currently has 3 IL-76 and 2 IL-62 heavy air transport aircraft, with 2 more IL-62 in airliner configuration.  Altogether, in a single airlift they could fly approximately 1200 fully-equipped infantry soldiers.  About half-way to Seattle, Washington (Washington is the state that is invaded, in the movie), the 3 IL-76’s and their 400 passengers would  crash into the Bering Sea.  Mid-air replenishment?  North Korea doesn’t have any air tankers.   The remaining 800 troops on board the IL-62’s would continue on, dropping these presumed paratroopers somewhere in Washington state.

And that would be it.  The IL-62’s would be running on fumes by this point, and the best they could hope to accomplish would be to land at some civilian airport and try to fuel up for the trip home.  Either that or kamikaze into some valuable target.

And all this assumes the entire United States military establishment is sitting on its hands.  Something which seems unreasonable to an extreme.  And let us see.  Hmmm.  Washington state is host to Joint Base Lewis-McChord and something like 25,000 active duty US Army troops.  And there’s the Washington National Guard, with the 81st Infantry Brigade.  Against 800 North Korean paratroopers who have no possibility of re-supply, no motor transport, and probably wandering the vast woodlands of Washington?

No, this does not pass the smell test.

Posted in Miscellaneous, Movies | Leave a comment

R.I.P. Michael Clarke Duncan

I just learned this morning that the actor Michael Clarke Duncan died yesterday from complications of a heart attack.  He was only 54!  I am not a fatuous follower of celebrities, but this man impressed me in the few films I saw in which he appeared.  I thought he was an actor of truly great ability and presence.  I also thought he deserved the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in The Green Mile.  I find that he did win a Saturn award for the role as Best Supporting Actor, and that is good.

You departed rather earlier than we should have preferred, and that is how it sometimes goes.  So farewell, Michael.

Posted in Miscellaneous, Movies, News | Leave a comment

Zo Hits the Nail on the Head

As you may have noticed I got really ticked off about that massacre in Aurora, Colorado last week.  I was particularly angered that there were no concealed carry holders in the house, and this in a state where concealed carry is relatively easy to qualify for.  But the second part of this whole mess had to be the Liberal talking heads (with mush instead of brains it appears) using this tragedy to bring up the tired subject of gun control.  It was fairly predictable.

Well, one of my favorite conservative YouTubers, Alonzo Rachel, weighed in on this subject in his YouTube channel, Macho Sauce Productions.  Go see!  You will like, I am sure.

Subscribe to his YouTube channel for even more fun!

Posted in Miscellaneous, Politics | Leave a comment

Where were the Concealed Carry Holders?

But For a Bit of Space and Time…

As I indicated, I am both sickened and angered by this event, but dismayed as well.  Colorado is a Concealed Carry state!  Why was this guy allowed to continue his rampage until he himself terminated it?  Or ran out of ammunition?  Nope.  He had plenty.  Did he run out of targets?  Not at all.  Were any of those who were killed outright holders of concealed carry permits?  Not that I have heard.  Were there any concealed carry permit holders even present, and if so, were they carrying at the time?  The answer to those questions at least would appear to be a big NO.

It seems that the shooter had the foresight to imagine that there might have been someone in the audience who was armed.  He was able to perform his actions entirely at his leisure, but he prepared himself with ballistic clothing, as if anticipating the possibility of return fire.  Better to be prepared and not need it, of course, but if there had been any in the theater that night who possessed concealed carry permits, they clearly under-prepared, because nobody took any steps to oppose this madman.

Colorado: a Concealed Carry State

A friend of mine suggested that the lack of anyone capable of returning fire was likely due to the young age of most of the movie-goers (concealed carry permits are usually age-restricted to over-21).  I must concede this possibility.  But why couldn’t there have been at least one?  Someone to distract the shooter with the need to defend himself, rather than allowing him free reign?  Alas, no.

Futile and Pathetic Measures Predicted

Here is what will likely happen now.  Irrespective of the fact that forbidding the carrying of arms into the theater would not have stopped this senseless event, the movie theater chain, Century 16, will now post signs prominently at entrances, stating uselessly and pathetically, “No firearms allowed!”  All this would accomplish, of course, would be to prevent rule-abiding people from bringing firearms into the theater.  Mr. Holmes wouldn’t have even seen the signs, had they already been posted, because he came in through the exit.  And if he had come in through the entrance, does anyone really expect that he would have stopped short and turned around because of a silly rule?  When he planned to break the most sacred of laws?  That’s why posting such signs would be pathetic.  Just watch, though.  I bet they have already posted them!

Effectual Means of Protection

Regardless of ballistic protection, if someone had been returning fire and hitting this guy in his ballistic vest, he would have been forced to remove his attention from his fleeing victims and first find, and then engage, someone returning fire.  And while some have pointed out that a movie theater is normally darkened, in order to allow viewers to see the movie, the screen itself would provide enough light to engage a single target.  And with only a single target, and collateral targets (the victims) fleeing as quickly as possible, a defender would have pretty much a clear shot.  How quick to draw and shoot?  Check this out:

Posted in Events, Politics | Leave a comment

Sickened and Angered About the Aurora Shooting

Ever have one of those days when you kind of know what you want to say, but aren’t sure where to begin with it?  Nobody’s ever accused me of being a man of few words, but sometimes there is so much to say that the magnitude of what needs to be said confers a degree of silence upon me.  Temporarily, at least.

In the heat of the event itself, which as I write occurred just a few days ago, I hardly need to write about what happened.  But for the sake of future readers who may have forgotten, it was shortly after midnight on 20 July 2012 that James E. Holmes entered a theater which was screening the newest Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, and firing three weapons at the audience, killed 12, and injured many others.  More about this on Wikipedia, HERE.

Innocent Victims

I am sickened by this event because of the lives that were senselessly taken, especially so that it happened in a place that should have been completely devoid of peril, and happening so unexpectedly.  I hope devoutly for the loved ones of those who died that they will be blessed by a merciful God, and that their anguish and sadness might be tempered by the certain hope in the Resurrection wrought by our Savior Jesus Christ.  Death separates too many of us too young from those whom we love, but whether it happens expectedly after a long life, or unexpectedly as in tragedies such as this, there still remains hope in the Lord.  That, at least, remains to us.

The Perp

There is little to be said for the actor in this tragedy.  His insanity was little remarked upon during the time leading up to this event, and little he did or said beforehand would have led most reasonable persons to fear for his future actions.  Thus this culmination is about as unpredictable, and as unpreventable, as any event of nature could be.  That he did not kill himself, and that he allowed himself to be captured, will at least allow us to be trammeled unmercifully with the subsequent trial and sentencing for his crime.

It would have been better, I tend to think, that he should have turned his weapons upon himself — and saved us from the coming denouement and media circus that it will surely become.  Thus he further victimizes us all.

Posted in Events, Politics | Leave a comment

My Review of Regular Expressions Cookbook

Originally submitted at O’Reilly

This cookbook provides more than 100 recipes to help you crunch data and manipulate text with regular expressions. With recipes for popular programming languages such as C#, Java, JavaScript, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, and VB.NET, Regular Expressions Cookbook will help you learn powerful …

A Very Handy Addition to my Bookshelf!

By Cyberherbalist from Olympia, WA on 7/17/2012

 

4out of 5

Pros: Helpful examples, Easy to understand, Well Organized, Well-written

Cons: Index could be expanded

Best Uses: Student, Expert, Novice, Intermediate

Describe Yourself: Developer

I got this book hoping to find “recipes” for the various Regex problems I run into in my work, and it has more than fulfilled my expectations. Finding a thankfully clear tutorial on Regexes was an unexpected plus.

A previous reviewer, Steve of Houston, TX, complained about the recipe numbering scheme, like where the text might say “see Recipes 3.15 and 3.16”. He said he couldn’t figure out what these numbers meant or where there was a list of them. What?! Did he actually have a copy of the book in hand? The Table of Contents lists each recipe and gives its title. The format is X.Y, where X is the chapter and Y is the individual recipe. If one is referred to Recipe 2.6, it is child’s play to turn to chapter 2 and find the sixth recipe. They are clearly marked. This is entirely intuitive, and I cannot understand how he could have missed it.

(legalese)

Posted in Miscellaneous | Leave a comment

Romney at the NAACP: Boos, Yes, But Also Applause

I just got done watching the video of Mitt Romney’s address today at the NAACP convention in Dallas, Texas.  It was very well received, in my opinion.  Of course, not a rousing chorus of approval, and yes there were a few boos, but I noticed that there were far more instances of applause than of boos.  And if you watch it all the way to the end, Romney gets a warm response to his closing words — and surprise, surprise, surprise as Gomer Pyle might have said, he actually got a standing ovation.  Again, not wildly enthusiastic, but certainly more than just polite.

But what do we hear from the media?  The first thing they mention, right up front, is the boos.  As if that was the NAACP’s entire reaction to Romney’s address.  Of course, the “mainstream” media is completely neutral, and always strives for even-handedness, as if the fact that 90% of them voted for Barack Obama doesn’t matter one bit.

The funny thing is, even Fox News led with the boos.  Like nobody expected it, if Romney brought up repealing Obamacare?

The main thing to keep in mind is that the folks at the NAACP were more than gracious in their treatment of Mitt Romney, and so what if they booed a particular item?  It would have been astounding if they hadn’t booed at that.

Just for the sake of having a link to a good version of the video of the speech, here’s the NAACP’s version:

Mittens?

Yesterday, I saw that one of my old high school friends used on Facebook a nickname for Mitt Romney I hadn’t heard before: “Mittens”.  How odd!  And how very sophomoric!

I’m sure he didn’t invent the nickname, however, because  I’ve seen it elsewhere since then.  I guess it’s one of those things that are going to be bandied about, probably even after Mitt Romney gets elected President, something I most devoutly hope for.

There’s some “Hope and Change” that even I can believe in.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Leave a comment

A Really FINE rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner

I was clued into this version of the Star-Spangled Banner by Alphonso Rachel of Zonation.  A bit different but really beautiful — at least to my ears.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Leave a comment

Morgan Freeman: Obama not our first black President

I love Morgan Freeman as an actor.  There’s nobody quite like him, and I’ve liked pretty much every movie he’s acted in, largely because of him.  Of course he’s not perfect.  Nobody is.  But how could he say things like this — and still remain credible?

OK, I was disappointed when I heard him refer to the Tea Party as racists.  And the reason for this?  Because the Tea Party supposedly wanted to see President Obama lose this November.  It sure is fun, isn’t it?  Calling people nasty names because they take principled political stands on issues — just because those principles happen to be opposed by a President who happens to be black?  I wonder if Republicans could get away with this?  Say, if Mitt Romney gets elected, could the Republicans get away with calling those people who voted for Obama racists?  Because Romney is white?  Nah.

But his latest pronouncement is simply amazing, as well as disappointing.  In an interview with NPR, Mr. Freeman said that Obama isn’t actually our first black President.  He’s our first “mixed-race President”.  And why?  Because Obama’s mother was white!  You could have knocked me over with a feather.  Don’t believe me?  Here, have a listen:

The reason I felt that this outrageous is that I know something about discrimination.  As white as I am, one of my great great grandmothers was American Indian.  Her children were all “Half-Breeds” and treated even more disrespectfully by the whites than their full-blood cousins.  Mixed race, indeed!  So Obama is a “half-breed”?  That is what Mr. Freeman just said.  Not in so many words, but can you say “code words”?

Another situation came to my mind after hearing Mr. Freeman’s words.  Apartheid.  If you don’t know what that means, count yourself fortunate, but read about it HERE.

Back in the mid-60’s my family lived for a time in Toronto, Canada due to my father’s employment.  In my high school I had a friend and fraternity brother named Dion.  He was from South Africa.  But he was not white, neither was black.  In South African terms, by legal definition, Dion and his family were all “colored”.  Under Apartheid Dion had certain privileges not enjoyed by his black cousins, and had certain privileges enjoyed by whites withheld.  They emigrated from South Africa because of Apartheid, because they were “mixed-race” or “half-breeds”.  They were second-class citizens in the land of their birth.

This is what I was astonished to hear, that Morgan Freeman could call Barack Obama a “half-breed” or a “mulatto“, simply by using another euphemism, “mixed-race”, and get away with it.

But to cut to the chase, to Morgan Freeman at least, Barack Obama isn’t black enough.

Simply astounding.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Misrepresentations: Mitt Romney and Abortion

Washington state isn’t considered a swing state in the upcoming election (it’s probably considered a “sure thing” for the Obama campaign), so we didn’t get to see the recent scare-tactic ads directed against Mitt Romney in a number of swing states, claiming that Romney plans to do away with a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby.  Ahem, I mean her “right to choose.”

As an aside, I must point out that normally, a person’s right to choose a particular thing is not associated with the death of another person, at least when it comes to a legal act, but when it comes to this particular euphemism, exercising the “right to choose” does involve the death of another person, and the most helpless of all persons, an unborn baby.  Aren’t euphemisms great?

Anyway, the text of the ad contains the following:

“Every woman who believes decisions about our bodies and our health-care should  be our own is troubled Mitt Romney supports overturning Roe v. Wade… Romney backed a law that outlaws all  abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.”

As Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels once said,

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Given that the “mainstream media” are largely liberal Democrats and firmly in Obama’s camp (their public posturing as “neutral actors” – another lie – notwithstanding), NBC, ABC, CNN, and CBS together form what amounts to the virtually state-controlled media in the United States, and if any of their news programs happens to report on the Obama campaign’s ad as a misrepresentation I will be quite surprised.

Romney’s campaign has of course addressed this lying ad already, so far be it for me to try repeat their efforts, but it might be instructive to note that the church that Romney adheres to (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to which I also adhere) happens to hold as doctrine that abortion is permissible under certain circumstances, namely the exact circumstances that the Obama ad claims Romney was opposed to allowing abortion in case of:  rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.  Romney has in fact indicated that those are the circumstances under which he considers that abortion may be permitted.  So the ad is an out and out lie.

The precise language of the LDS church policy is as follows:

The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:

  1. Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.
  2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
  3. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.

I don’t think that Mitt Romney would seek to have the law restrict abortion any further than this, short of a majority in both houses of Congress enacting a law so restricting it.

In other words, the Left is again attempting to put words in the Right’s mouth, words which the Right would not speak and by and large doesn’t believe.  Although of course there are some on the right who do hold that abortion is wrong in all cases.  Mitt Romney is not one of them, however.

Posted in Politics, Religion | Leave a comment