http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sun, 9 Jan 2005 16:26:24 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/09/162624.php David HogbergIn my review of season two of 24 I panned the ridiculous plotline involving Jack Bauer's daughter, Kim, played by Elisha Cuthbert. Given that mindset, I was in little mood for more absurd television as season three began. Yet that was exactly how the first five episodes of season three seemed. The prison breakout by Bauer of Ramon Salazar (played by the estimable actor Joaquim de Almeida) was the last straw, and I stopped watching.I wasn't planning to review it this year for Blogcritics, let alone watch season four. But fate intervened. My brother wanted suggestions for what to get me for Christmas, and I was having a difficult time coming up with ideas. So, on a lark, I suggested the third season of 24, and he got it for me. I trudged through episode five, and I'm quite glad I did. For after that, the show improves considerably. Although Jack's race to stop the release of a killer virus does not move seamlessly, the writers have constructed it well enough that, watching the DVD set, I really wanted to see the next episode each time the current one ended. By the time I finished, I was sorry that I'd stopped watching it on TV after episode five and have resolved to not miss an episode of season four (a decision I hope I will not come to regret.)Season three suggests that the producers were more obsessed with cutting payroll than the now defunct Montreal Expos were during spring training. Some of the cuts were good ones. Gone are Sarah Clarke, who played rouge agent Nina Meyers, and Penny Johnson Jerald, who played Sherry, President David Palmer's scheming ex-wife. (Both characters exited via being on the wrong end of a gun.) Both are good actresses but the plotlines involving them were getting tedious. Was Nina Meyers going to be involved with every bad guy threatening America? And it was getting increasingly hard to believe that President Palmer would continue associating with his wife--after what she did in season two, it is a big, big stretch that he goes to her in season three. Anyway, both of those plot problems are now gone. Season three also suggests that Elisha Cuthbert (Run, Kim, run!) is also gone, and based on the reviews I've read she is. Cuthbert is a good actress, and that is part of the problem--her talent is being wasted on stupid plots lines.It's less clear whether the apparent cutting of Carlos Bernard (Tony Almeida), Reiko Aylesworth (Michelle Dessler), and Dennis Haysbert (President David Palmer) will go down as well. To be honest, I'm not sure that they are gone, but the plot in season three strongly suggests that they are, and I haven't seen their mugs in any of the promos for season four. Haysbert is especially troubling since he was a cornerstone of the show.Aside from that, however, it is well worth owning the DVD box set of season three if you are a big 24 fan. Hopefully, I'll be able to say the same about season four. Video24068@blogcritics.org Sun, 9 Jan 2005 16:26:24 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/14/135325.php David HogbergWhen the U.S. Open began about two weeks ago, I noticed an article about the U.S. Open with the lead, "Agassi's Last Hurrah?" Tennis is a funny game. At age 34, in most other sports Andre Agassi would still have a chance at being in his prime. In golf, hell, he'd still almost be a babe. But in tennis, 34 is pretty much geezerville.Now that the U.S. Open is over, and since it probably won't be long before Agassi hangs up the racquet, it is worth contemplating whether or not Agassi is one of tennis's all-time greats. Some of you might be now be screaming, John McEnroe-like, "YOU CAN"T BE SERIOUS! Of course he's one of the all-time greats." But bear with me for a few paragraphs.Let's start with the five men tennis players who played only in the Open Era (since 1968) that no serious tennis fan would dispute are truly great: Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, and Pete Sampras. Now, let's see how Agassi fares against those five.The first place to start is tournament wins. Borg had 62, Connors 109, Lendl 94, McEnroe 77, and Sampras 64. At 59 (it might actually be 60 now--I think that page is a bit out of date) Agassi is certainly very close to, if not within, the range of greatness. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and say his numbers on this statistic would qualify for greatness.The next aspect to look at is number of wins at the Grand Slam tournaments (for non-tennis fans, those are the Australian Open, French Open, U.S. Open, and Wimbledon.) Agassi's 8 Grand-Slam titles surpass McEnroe's 7, equal Connors' and Lendl's 8 each, and are only exceeded by Borg's 11 and Sampras's 14. He also seems to be in the "greatness range" on this measure too.But here is where the comparison begins to falter. Half of Agassi's Grand Slams are Australian Open titles. Of the five greats, the players with the next most Australian titles are Lendl and Sampras, with two each. Connors has one, and McEnroe and Borg have none. This matters because the Australian Open has been the "Garbage Can" Slam since Australia's tennis heyday waned in the early 1970s. Without lots of top Australian players, the Australian Open lost some prestige as top players from other countries decided not to play in it. As best as I can determine, both Connors and Borg stopped playing in it during the mid 1970s, and McEnroe didn't show up until about 1983. That means that for about seven to eight years the top two-to-three tennis players in the world didn't play in it. The Australian Open has made something of a comeback in recent years, yet it is not uncommon for a lot of top players to skip it each year. Winning isn't quite the challenge as winning the other three where most of the top players show up. Thus, Agassi's Slam record just isn't as prestigious as the other five great players.Another reason Agassi can't be considered great is what one might call a "prolonged period at the top." Each of the great five had at least a few years where they were at the number one ranking much of the time and won most of their matches. The few times they weren't in the top spot one of the other great players had overtaken them (think of the competition between McEnroe, Connors, and Borg). In short, these players had a sustained commitment to playing their best and making the most of their talent for at least a few years.Did Agassi ever have such a period? Not really. He was making moves in that direction in early 1995, after winning the Australian Open on the heels of a victory in the U.S. Open the previous year. But after failing to defend his U.S. Open title (he lost to Sampras) he seemed to lose some interest in tennis, failed to stay in shape, and had a string of injuries that led to him being ranked lower than 100. He made an admirable comeback, and again seemed to be on the verge of a prolonged period at the top in early 2000. But by then he was almost 30, when age usually begins to catch up with a tennis player. In Agassi's case it did.Much of this is reflected in the number of weeks that each of the great five spent at number one ranking. Of the great five, Borg pulls up the rear at 109 weeks (scroll to the bottom). Agassi is next, at 88 weeks. On that measure, Agassi seems on the cusp of greatness.That, I think, is the best way to describe Agassi's career. Almost great, but not quite. It's unfortunate, because Agassi had almost as much talent as Sampras. Think what might have been had Agassi shown the same dedication to tennis early in his career that he finally showed late in it. He and Sampras would have been playing each other in Grand Slam finals often. As it was, they met only five times, with Sampras winning four of them. They would have been battling each other for the top ranking for much of the 1990s. The saddest words of tongue and pen...It is not easy to write this. I've long taken an interest in Agassi's career. I first noticed him not only back when he had hair, but when he had pink streaks in it! He is, literally, only about two weeks older than me. I rooted for him often during Grand Slams, only to be continually disappointed. He was one of the main hallmarks of the 1990s, where image was everything, and substance was a distant second. The unfortunate consequence of that is a massively talented athlete who will never quite rank as great. Culture19824@blogcritics.org Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:53:25 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/19/131809.php David HogbergHere's a round up of various Iowa bloggers and their caucus predictions. They are actually quite varied: Each of the big four candidates is chosen by at least one of the bloggers. Here they are: Over at Tusk and Talon, there's Jeff, Chad, and Don. Here's Cedar Pundit, Yin blog, and Jason Steffens. Well worth your time. For my prediction, go here. Culture11859@blogcritics.org Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:18:09 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/03/001036.php David HogbergShould a writer or director inject their politics into their movies? If it doesn't interfere with the story and pace of the film, I think it is no big deal. The problem occurs when the politics detracts from the film. That is the main problem in the horror flick 28 Days Later.Hailed as the return of the "Zombie" movie, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland have created a picture on par with good horror movies like the early Friday the 13th films or The Ring. It is by no mean a great horror film like The Shining or--a film to which it was erroneously compared--the Exorcist. By the way, what is the deal with comparing every two-bit piece of fright schlock with William Friedkin's classic? Remember how the move "Lost Souls" was dubbed "This generation's Exorcist"? After watching that fiasco, I took a solemn oath to never see another Wynona Rider picture.Anyway, 28 Days Later occurs in Great Britain, in which a virus that turns people into killer zombies is loosed on the population. After the virus ravages Britain, a bicycle courier named Jim wakes up in the hospital after being in an accident-induced coma. He is saved from a zombie attack by a woman named Selena. They later hook up with a father, Frank, and his daughter, Hannah. They find a radio broadcast that promises a cure to the virus and encourages them to come to a blockade near Manchester. Upon reaching the blockade, Frank becomes infected with the virus, and is about to attack the other three when the soldiers responsible for the broadcast show up and kill him. The soldiers lead Jim, Selena and Hannah to safety. The soldiers show Jim a zombie they have captured which they are using to learn about the virus. Later, the soldiers foil an attack of from a pack of zombies. Frank may be dead, but at least the other three are okay, right?Alas, as is so often the case in the film industry, the military just can't be a force for good. The soldiers set up the broadcast in the hopes of luring some women for a bit of nooky, the forced kind. So not only are the soldiers about to become rapists but, given that Hannah is only 14, also pederasts.Now, don't get me wrong. I realize that the military, like any other institution, has its bad apples. And sometimes its weaknesses can make for very good film, like A Few Good Men. Yet this is not one of those times.After Jim refuses to go along with the soldiers' diabolism, he is led out to be executed. He manages to escape, then kills three soldiers, and releases the captured zombie--who is nice enough to kill some of the other soldiers--in an attempt to rescue Selena and Hannah. So, a skinny bicycle messenger with no apparent military training who is not more than four days out of the hospital manages to subdue a bunch of well-trained British soldiers. Of course he has the help of a zombie, but that seems all the more unlikely given that this is a military unit that has become quote adept at fending off the foul things. (In addition, he kills one solider with the bayonet of rifle, and leaves it in the soldier. Wouldn't that rifle have been useful in trying to defeat the other soldiers?)This is made ironic if one views the alternative endings included in the CD version. On one such ending, Jim, Selena, Frank, and Hannah never encounter the soldiers. Frank still becomes infected, but Jim subdues him with a baseball bat. They take him too a hospital where they discover one of the scientists responsible for creating the virus. The scientist informs them that there is a cure for the virus, but it involves a full blood transfusion. In their commentary, Boyle and Garland suggested that this ending posed a big problem because you'd have to convince the audience that Frank's infected blood was "drained out of every capillary." In other words, it was too improbable. So why did Boyle and Garland choose an equally improbable ending? Chances are it probably fit their stereotypes of the military. A bunch of thuggish soldiers willing to engage in rape given their just desserts by a scrawny geek--what could be more fitting?28 Days Later might have been a great horror film had Boyle and Garland worked harder to come up with a fitting ending. Instead, they let their political views ruin it. Video9774@blogcritics.org Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:10:36 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/28/093558.php David HogbergLast year I reviewed the CD box set of season one of the TV show 24. I argued that the success of the show was due largely to the shows two stars, Keifer Sutherland, who played Counter-Terrorist Agent Jack Bauer and Dennis Haysbert, who played presidential candidate David Palmer. I worried that if Haysbert was relegated to a supporting role, the show would slip. Well, I'm happy to say that Haysbert had a prime role in season two, and he was just as good in it as he was in season one.Season two begins with a solid plot idea: terrorists are trying to detonate a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles. Now President David Palmer implores Jack Bauer to return to his job as an agent (he left after his wife was killed in season one) to help find the bomb. Palmer is beset not only by the task of trying to thwart the terrorists and keep the bomb threat a secret, and thereby avoiding mass panic, but also by some scheming and disloyal members of his staff.Unfortunately, there is a huge problem with season two. Two words: Kim Bauer. The subplot involving her character is so improbable as to be laughable. Surely, 24 is a show that requires the viewer to suspend a bit more of his disbelief than he usually would. But the Kim Bauer subplot stretches that to the breaking point, breaks it, and then keeps going. You see, Kim is working as an au pair for a child, Megan, with a psychotic father. As Psycho Dad gets abusive, Kim escapes with Megan. Instead of racing to the cops, she sort of runs around until Psycho Dad catches up with her. After Kim, who is smaller than Psycho Dad, beats him up, she rushes Megan to the hospital. At the hospital, the doctor finds evidence of long-term abuse of Megan, and suspects Kim might be responsible. Psycho Dad shows up at the hospital, and threatens Kim with kidnapping charges unless she goes away. By this time, naturally, Jack Bauer has told Kim about the bomb, so she can't leave without Megan. What to do?Call Hunky Boyfriend! Hunky Boyfriend comes to the hospital and helps Kim get Megan out of the hospital, evades hospital security, and beats up Psycho Dad. They then steal - oops, sorry, take - Psycho Dad's car (wouldn't you know it, Hunky Boyfriend had to take a cab to the hospital). A cop later pulls them over for speeding, and is about to let them go - he buys the story that they are borrowing the car from Kim's boss - when he sees blood dripping from the trunk. Psycho Dad has killed Hapless Mom! So, Megan gets carted off by the proper authorities, and Kim and Hunky Boyfriend get arrested for murder. After being processed at the police station, Kim pleads with the cops not to send her back to L.A. because of the bomb, which she had promised her dad she wasn't going to say anything, but, well, who wants to die in a nuclear bomb blast? The cops don't believe her, and transport her and Hunky Boyfriend back to L.A. Kim and Hunky Boyfriend decide to escape by starting a fire in the cop's truck (or is it an SUV?) Now, it's not clear where Hunky Boyfriend got the lighter to start the fire (don't cops empty suspects' pockets when they are arrested?) but spontaneous combustion would be just too improbable. Instead of pulling the truck over to the side of the road, the cop freaks out at the site of the fire, and the truck rolls over. The cop and Hunky Boyfriend are seriously injured but - surprise! - Kim only has a few scratches. After she radios back that the truck has rolled over and that the cop and Hunky Boyfriend are injured, she escapes on foot. She eludes a police helicopter only to get stuck in an animal snare as a mountain lion is chasing her. Despite her helplessness, the mountain lion decides not to eat her. (Bad mountain lion! Very bad!) Had enough yet? No? Good, 'cause there's more.She gets rescued by a character played by Kevin Dillon. Dillon tricks her into thinking the bomb has gone off so she'll stay with him in his cabin because, well, he's kind of lonely. When she discovers his deception, he lets her go and gives her a gun to protect herself from the mountain lions. (Bad mountain lions! Very bad!) She then hitches a ride out of L.A., during which time the bomb detonates, although not in L.A. but in a remote desert thanks to Jack. She gets out near a convenience store, where the owner lets her in to use the bathroom. While she's in the bathroom, some guy freaked out by the bomb breaks into the store when the owner won't let him in. Kim tries to subdue him with the gun, but she doesn't have the heart to shoot at him, even though she earlier fired at a scummy driver who tried to pick her up when she was hitchhiking. Mr. Freaked-Out-By-The-Bomb disarms her, and then accidentally shoots the store owner. He takes Kim hostage when the cops show up. But she escapes, the cops capture Mr. Freaked-Out-By-The Bomb, whereupon Kim admits to the police that there is warrant out for her arrest.She then goes back to the cop station, where - surprise! - the cops know that Psycho Dad is the one who murdered Hapless Mom, that Kim was just trying to help Megan when she took her away from Psycho Dad, and that when she escaped from custody which resulted in the serious injury of a cop (not to mention Hunky Boyfriend), well, that won't be a very big deal. Funny how they were able to find out all these things while having to manage the panic in L.A. after the bomb went off. Anyway, she is then transported back to Psycho Dad's house to "pick up her things." (Yeah, that's where I would go!) Wouldn't you know it, the cops know Pyscho Dad murdered Hapless Mom, but they've got no one watching Psycho Dad's house, other than the cop who transported Kim. And, wouldn't you know it, Psycho Dad shows up and subdues the cop. He goes after Kim, but she hides from him in an attic, whereupon she falls through the attic right on to Psycho Dad, rendering him unconscious. She then takes his gun, and with a little coaching from Jack via cell phone, shoots Psycho Dad not once, but twice. See, if she'd had some coaching from Jack when she was at the convenience store ... oh, never mind.It's so unfortunate that this schlock is included in 24. It sticks out like sore thumb. No, it's worse than that: It sticks out like a body builder at a 98-pound-scrawny-weakling convention. It diminishes the other plot lines, most of which are pretty well constructed. Yes, I know that Elisha Cuthbert, who plays Kim, is eye candy, and the producers have to find a part for her. But this is ridiculous.I can only hope that the shows creators have realized what went wrong with season two and have fixed it in season three. Otherwise, the shows ratings will soon tank.Finally, in last year's review I asked if "you should buy the DVD set?" I suggested that it was worth it if you were a big fan. Otherwise, maybe it would have made a good Christmas gift. This year, find something else to stuff the stocking with. Video9564@blogcritics.org Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:35:58 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/16/145156.php David HogbergYes, believe it or not, I was able to discover a silver lining in the cloud that is the Cubs' defeat in the NLCS. Here is the link to the post on my website: Okay, so what is the good in the Cubs' loss? I won't have to see the following phrase in liberal editorials that endorse the Democratic candidate for President next year: "Yes, Dean [or Kerry, or whoever] may be a long shot against Bush. But if the Cubs can win the pennant..." As the election nears, I'm sure I'll be reading all manner of undiluted crap. Because of the Cubs' loss, that, thankfully, won't be part of it.(My apologies to all Cubs fans.) Culture9246@blogcritics.org Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:51:56 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/15/163833.php David HogbergEric Olsen was nice enough to encourage me to post something here about a new study that I authored for the think-tank I work for, the Public Interest Institute, that examines Social Security reform. (And Eric is much too nice to for me to decline.) Entitled "Social Security Reform and Union Households in Iowa," it takes on claims from union leaders that introducing a system of personal retirement accounts (PRAs) to Social Security will result in drastic benefit cuts. Needless to say, the union leaders' dire predictions don't hold water.For the purposes of this post, I'll simply reprint two parts of the study. The first describes the three reform plans I looked at:The first plan is based on the "Retirement Security Act," a new Social Security reform recently introduced by Representative Nick Smith. Referred to here as the "2.5% Plan," it allows workers to invest two and one-half percent of their payroll annually in a PRA that can be invested in stocks and/or bonds. It also adds additional funds to the PRAs for low-wage workers, an additional $300 annually for those making between $5,000-$25,000, and an additional $150 annually for those making between $25,000-$35,000. In exchange for using the PRA option, part of the worker's traditional Social Security benefit is "offset" based on a 3.7% return to the PRA. As long as the PRA earns more than an average of 3.7% annually, a worker will have higher monthly benefits upon retirement than he would under Social Security. The second is modeled on Plan II in The Report of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. Referred to here as the "4% Plan," it allows workers to invest four percent of their payroll annually, up to $1,000, in a PRA. Each year the limit on the amount workers can invest is indexed for wage growth. The offset rate for the traditional Social Security benefit is 2%.The third plan is modeled on the plan detailed in "Large Accounts and Small Deficits," a recent policy study by Andrew Biggs. Henceforth the "3%-Bond Plan," it allows a worker to invest three percent of their payroll in a PRA. It also permits them to invest an additional two percent of payroll in their PRA, but that portion must be invested in federal government bonds. The limit on the amount that can be invested in the PRA is $2,100, indexed annually for wage growth. Furthermore, the 3%-Bond Plan has progressive offset rates for traditional Social Security. The offset rates are 2.5% for low-income workers, 3% for middle-income workers, and 3.5% for high-income workers.The second part examines how union households would fare under these plans:The study examined what the PRAs would return when invested in both funds from Fidelity, a well-respected investment firm, and the Thrift Savings Plan, the retirement program for Federal employees. The results show that a system of PRAs is a much better deal for today's workers. A couple age 25 making the median income for a union household in Iowa would have under the 4% Plan an average of $1,717 more per month in retirement income over what Social Security promises, an average of $870 more under the 2.5% Plan, and $1,152 more under the 3%-Bond Plan. A low-income union household in Iowa also fares much better, netting an average of $423, $377, and $256, respectively, under the three plans. The benefits are by no means limited to union households. The same methods employed in the study can be used to estimate benefits for any household in America. A 25-year-old household making the median income ($42,228) could expect under the 4% Plan to have an average of $1,366 more in monthly benefits over what Social Security promises to pay, $2,295 more under the 2.5% Plan, and $1,842 more under the 3%-Bond Plan. A household making just under the poverty level ($18,000) can expect $798, $648, and $558, respectively, under the three plans.The key tables in the study are on pages 11 and 13. The methodology is on page 18, if you care to check that.Two last things: I need to make a little plug for the group that helped PII put this study together, For Our Grandchildren. Go visit their site for more information on Social Security reform.Also, if anyone is interested, I'll be happy to calculate what you could expect to receive under a system of personal retirement accounts. Yes, I could get swamped with requests, but I doubt it. For me to calculate it for you, I need to know your income and your age. That most people find those things to be very personal likely ensures that my workload will be light. Culture9213@blogcritics.org Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:38:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/02/15/093615.php David HogbergIt was great. Put Ben Affleck in a red-leather suit and call it a movie. Yeah. Video3208@blogcritics.org Sat, 15 Feb 2003 09:36:15 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/02/11/090115.php David HogbergMichael Crichton is a very talented storyteller. Unfortunately, he seems to be running out of stories to tell.In his new book Prey, a company creates some micro-organisms that behave much like tiny insects. They are supposed to functions as cameras that can travel through the human body, helping doctors see medical ailments. Yet the technology backfires, and the "insects" turn on their creators.Sound familiar? Crichton's theme that humans are cavalier about the unintended consequences of technology dates back to his books The Andromeda Strain and The Terminal Man. He revisited it in works like Sphere, and Jurassic Park, and has now taken the same approach with nanotechnology in Prey. Crichton is beginning to sound like "Johnny One Note" (or is it "Johnny One Theme" in literature?) This might explain why Prey is not selling well.Among the other problems with Prey is that Crichton continues his long habit of prognosticating. Prey is supposed to serve as a warning of the real-life dangers that lie ahead. Yet Crichton's abilities as a prognosticator are, to put it kindly, lacking. (For what may arguably be his biggest disaster on this score, see the anti-Japanese screed Rising Sun.) While technology certainly has unforeseen consequences, it has produced nowhere near the horror scenarios Crichton envisions. Apparently no one has informed Crichton that after thirty plus years of writing about technology disasters, his warnings ring hollow. Thus Prey ends with the lines:They didn't understand what they were doing.I'm afraid that will be on the tombstone of humanity.I hope it's not.We might get lucky. On the very next page Crichton tells us "This novel is entirely fictitious, but the underlying research programs are real." This is the lead for another Bibliography that the concerned reader can use to inform himself of the coming dangers. It comes off as ridiculous.As I said earlier, Crichton is a very talented storyteller. Unfortunately his books are becoming formulaic and predictable. Hopefully, after the poor sales of Prey, someone at HarperCollins will insist to Crichton that he come up with original material. Books3118@blogcritics.org Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:01:15 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/01/09/002200.php David HogbergAfter watching my DVD of M. Night Shyamalan's "Signs", I was reminded of how much it had affected my life. In Signs, aliens prepare for an invasion of earth by making "crop circles" in cornfields. Once here, they kill humans for food. However, the aliens have a fatal weakness: water. Contact with the stuff can kill them.As you may know, I live in Iowa. I commute about 25 miles to work, over a country highway surrounded by cornfields. After seeing Signs for the first time, I quickly rushed to the local Wal-Mart to purchase a water gun. Specifically, I purchased a Super Soaker CPS 1200, a pump-action water blaster. I keep it loaded in my Civic.Then, one night last fall, it happened. I was on my way home late from work. It was dark out. Suddenly, my car sputtered. It began to slow down. I pulled over to the side of the road, where the car died. I looked at the gas gauge. The needle was on E. Those damn aliens had telekinetically siphoned all the gas out of my car!With trepidation I got out of my car. To my right was a huge cornfield. Looking around, I saw lights in the distance. A farmhouse--but it was at least a half mile away. I went to the passenger side of my car and got out my Super Soaker. If the aliens were going to get me before I made it to safety, I wasn't going down without a fight.As I began my trek to the farmhouse, I tried to stay as far from the cornfield as I could. But then I heard a rustling noise in the cornfield. I felt myself irresistibly drawn to it. I cautiously entered the rows of corn. No rustling noise. I relaxed.No wait! There it was, off to my left. My hands trembled as I pointed the Super Soaker in the direction of the noise. I steadied them. I moved slowly forward. There it was again! And a corn stalk was moving! I mustered all of my courage, screamed at the top of my lungs, and ran toward the corn stalk with the Super Soaker blasting. Suddenly, the alien jumped out from behind the corn stalk. I fired away at it, but it was too quick. It dodged the water spray, and scampered away. I say scampered, because the alien looked like a jackrabbit. It had cleverly transmorphed itself to fit into the country surrounding. But it was an alien all right. Why else would it run away when I tried to hit it with my Super Soaker?I finally made it to the farmhouse. The nice man who answered the door gave me a strange look when he saw me holding the Super Soaker. After I explained that my car was out of gas, he pointed to the Soaker and said "What's that for?" "To fight aliens," I replied. He gave me another strange look. Regardless, he went out to his garage and got a gas can. He pointed to his pickup truck and said "Hop in." I said, "Hang on a minute." I went to the faucet on the side of the house and filled up the Soaker. "Just in case," I said to the nice man. He gave me a third strange look. After gassing up the car, I thought to myself how fortunate I was to have bought a Super Soaker. If I hadn't, I surely would have been alien food-stuff. Thank God for M. Night Shyamalan's timely warning. Video2552@blogcritics.org Thu, 9 Jan 2003 00:22:00 EST