"The Switch": Two Best Friends Accidently Have a Son; Funny, No?

I watched another stinker of a movie last night. That's another $1.06 for a Red Box movie that's passed down the "gone" hole. The title of this nose-holder, "The Switch." It's not the "Switch" of Blake Edwards fame cranked out in 1991. No, this is the 2010 "The Switch" starring Jason Bateman and Jennifer Aniston.

Billed as a romantic comedy, it eats up 1 hour 41 minutes in search of a laugh -- any laugh. Not only is there not a laugh lurking anywhere in this turkey, there's not a giggle, titter or even a smile.

I am astonished that investors pour millions of their hard-earned dollars into projects like this without reading the script. The fact that the two hacks listed as its "writers" have resumes thinner than a communion wafer should have had alarm bells ringing in the pitch meeting. It amazes me that anyone in Hollywood has any money left.

Having said that, I was flabbergasted when I looked up its box-office gross to find that it managed to earn nearly $28 million here and another $22 million internationally. That's roughly $50 million from which the $19 million production budget must be subtracted. No doubt there is lots of creative bookkeeping that further reduces the $31 million difference. But consider how many movie goers were duped into plunking down 8 bucks to create a $50 million gross. Let's see, carry the 1...ummm, that's something like six and a quarter million unsuspecting folks.

Not only did it take two nearly untested writers to pen the script for this mess, it required two directors to coax zero laughs out of the lousy material they were given. Their collective resume is somewhat heftier than that of the writers, but not by much. The "Poseidon" remake and a couple of installments of the "Halloween" franchise comprise the only notable efforts. Obviously none of these are side-spliters.

Here's the abbreviated 4-1-1 of the plot: Boy and girl dated once upon a time. After a couple of dates, girl decides they will be just friends. Years later they are best friends. Single, she announces she wants to get pregnant. In a drunken-stupor blackout, Boy switches his swimmers for the donor's. Girl moves to the burbs to raise her son. Girl gets new job and moves back to the city where Boy and son eventually bond, blah, blah, blah...

Because little of the movie's budget went into scripting or directing, there must have been plenty to attract an all-star cast. I do like the Boy, Jason Bateman. I'm not convinced that he is leading-man timber, but he is talented, likeable and usually delivers a dependably funny performance. I think he did the best he could with an unfunny script and a pair of directors who have never managed to generate the smallest on-screen snigger. Some of his scenes with his son, played by Thomas Robinson, are pretty engaging.

Jennifer Aniston was terrific in "Friends" and has parlayed that success into numerous movie roles for which she is woefully under qualified. I like her. I think she is attractive. But her talents are best utilized in a supporting role. A string of romantic comedies lay in her wake; all are pretty mediocre and a couple, like "The Bounty Hunter," are outright disasters. I think her role in the cult hit, "The Office," put her on screen about the appropriate amount of time and stretched her acting chops about as far as they go.

Tossed into the "The Switch" mix for good measure, Jeff Goldblum plays Bateman's character's boss. Given very little to do, he is basically there to provide some history and context for the Bateman/Aniston best-friend relationship.

In scoring Red Box movies, I consider whether or not I think I got my $1.06 worth. In this case, "The Switch" gave me something to do for nearly two hours last night. I don't feel like I was robbed. However, I think $.65 is closer to its true entertainment value.

Read More

Blame It on John Marshall

As I write this, we still don't know if the federal government will shut down or not. If it does, it won't be a total shutdown, but rather a shutdown of "nonessential" services. The term nonessential begs the question: If they are nonessential, why does the federal government use our tax dollars to pay for them in the first place?

Anyone remembering their 9th-grade Civics class realizes the federal government is bloated well beyond its Constitutional mandate. It controls, dictates and regulates way outside of the totally unambiguous boundaries set down by the 10th Amendment that simply says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Of course over the years the activist judiciary has bastardized nearly every line of the Constitution, bringing virtually every aspect of our lives under the thumb of the federal government. Obamacare is just the latest power grab by the federal government; and its future, too, will eventually be decided in the courts.

Some people don't realize that nowhere in the Constitution is the U.S. Supreme Court identified as the arbiter of what is and what isn't Constitutional. This is a power it claimed for itself.

Most of the damage was done and the stage set for activist jurists to begin chipping away at state and individual rights by the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall.

He is the poster child for term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices. He served as Chief Justice for 34 years beginning in 1801, and much of the federal government's abuse of power can be traced to him and his decisions.

A couple of his anti-Constitutional ideas that are now commonly used to justify the continued suppressing of individual freedoms:

• Redefining the body ratifying the Constitution as the "one American people" rather than the 13 individual states; thus minimizing the power of the states and trivializing the Republican form of central government. It was a decision based on ideology and not fact.
• Putting the elasticity into the Commerce clause that redefined "regulating interstate commerce," originally intended as the federal government facilitating trade among the states, as the power to regulate anything that crossed state borders. Over the years this definition has been expanded to basically include anything that in any way impacts commerce and the general population. In essence, giving the federal government power over everything. The most blatant unconstitutional aspect of Obamacare, the universal mandate that forces every citizen to purchase health insurance, will eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Constitutionalists argue that the federal government doesn't have to power to force its citizens to purchase anything; the Progressives argue that because healthcare and its costs affect all of us, the Commerce clause gives it the right to enforce the universal mandate. Thank-you, John Marshall.

As we face a possible partial shutdown of the federal government, I am struck by a few obvious questions:

1. Didn't the Democrat-controlled congress have six months to pass a 2011 budget? They managed to pass Obamacare without one Republican vote in the House or Senate. They passed the $1 trillion Stimulus Package without one Republican vote. Why didn't they pass a budget? Why is it suddenly the Republicans fault there isn't a budget and a possible partial shutdown looms?
2. Are we being duped? Here we are all lathered up over whether the cuts should be $6 billion, $30 billion or $60 billion. Isn't the 2011 budget deficit in excess of $1 trillion? How does even $60 billion in cuts really help? Is this administration and congress really interested in reining in spending and reducing the debt? The Paul Ryan-proposed budget notwithstanding, most indications point to, NO. Remember those cowboy poets need our money.
3. Are "we the people" on our own? With a federal government greedy for power and unwilling to limit its spending, are we deluding ourselves that our government has our collective back? This is like watching a train wreck: We see it coming, but are really helpless to do anything about it.

The most unfortunate thing about a partial federal government shutdown is that the congress and the administration aren't among the nonessential workers who will be furloughed. They will get to show up for their 3.5 days of work per week, collect their full salaries and benefits, and continue gumming up the works.

It seems their job of screwing the American people is never finished and too important to be interrupted.

Read More

Subaru Forester: Not as Quirky as the Typical Subaru

Quirkiness works; at least it has for Subaru. Arguably the most mainstream of its models, the Forester, is a great value and has about as much utility as most of us will ever need. Read my full review at

http://car-data.com/subaru-forester-sunshine-rain-snow-mud-dirt-or-pavement-p1283-126.htm.

Read More

Yet Another Sequel to Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure: Wake Me When It's Over

I read today that Bill and Ted are coming back in the threequel to "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" that was released in 1989. Am I excited? Well, not really.

I thought the original that featured two Southern California burnouts going back in time to collect historical figures for a school report was clever and often amusing, but am I Jonesing to see the adult version? Nah.

For one thing, neither of the stars -- yes, Keanu Reeves has been quoted as being on board for Bill and Ted 3 -- are accomplished comedic actors. They pulled off the original as teenagers; but as grown men, are going to have a much tougher slog making an audience laugh. Are they still going to be burnouts as 30-somethings or is part of the joke going to be that they are now successful business types of some sort. I'm beginning to chuckle already. George Carlin was the only real comedian in the movie and he's deader than last year's Christmas goose.

Maybe it's just me. Perhaps I just don't have the right attitude; but I don't think that's my problem with this. I'm not philosophically opposed to sequels. In fact, I'd love to see the next installment of the Star Trek franchise with the cast of the most recent version. Likewise I'm waiting for the next Batman installment. I'd also make an appearance at the cineplex for the next episode of the Transformers. And while it wouldn't actually continue a movie franchise, I'd like to see Joss Whedon reprise the TV cast of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in a movie. OK, OK, I know. Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Yes, I am a fan, and not a closet one either. People who know me know I am a fan. So stake me.

I suspect my real problem with Bill and Ted 3 is that I really don't give a rat's hind end what those two losers are up to more than 20 years later. Do they have jobs, wives, kids a 401K? I just don't care.

I'd rather see a sequel to Wall Street....Wait; they did that one. I rest my case.

Read More

Energy Independence? You Have a Better Chance of Winning the Lottery

Every U.S. president since Richard Nixon has promised energy independence somewhere in the foggy future. Democrat or Republican, they have each stated an energy policy that would see America free of foreign oil somewhere down the road. Oil imports have seen a year-over-year increase nearly every year since 1970. That's more than four decades of hot air from politicians articulating various impotent energy policies all aimed at making the U.S. energy independent.

Here's the unvarnished truth about energy independence: It is today's Holy Grail, a 21st century unicorn; it is not only elusive, it cannot be achieved today, tomorrow or in the next 50 years!

As a country we are borrowing billions of dollars from China to prop up through subsidies cave-man technologies, such as wind and solar, as well as, perhaps the biggest scam ever perpetrated against the American taxpayer: ethanol. We give tax breaks to people willing to pay extra for hybrid, electric and diesel vehicles. Meanwhile we are sitting on decades worth of coal, oil and natural gas; all of which are much more efficient than any of the subsidized energy schemes. But in reality, even mining all of our homegrown energy won't make us energy independent. It's an unachievable goal.

As with the ongoing argument to cut $60 billion or $30 billion or $6 billion from a budget that will add $1.5 trillion to our $14.5 trillion debt, the repeated call to action for energy independence is nothing more than a shell game diverting our attention away from real issues.

I clearly recall a political science professor I had in college telling my class one day that a trick employed by local politicians to make it look as though they had accomplished something of significance at election time was to repaint the lines on the streets. It provided the illusion that the streets had been repaved.

Wind, solar and ethanol are new lines painted on the streets-- all with taxpayer money.

You don't have to take my word for any of this. For your reading, I recommend Robert Bryce's Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence. It is a well-researched, detailed and abundantly footnoted work debunking the idea of energy independence. Dissecting caveman technologies, ethanol, import-oil alarmism and 40 year of U.S. energy policy (or nonpolicy, if you will), it lays waste to most of what we have been told by our politicians and the media regarding energy.

It will open your eyes; it certainly did mine.

Read More

Honda Insight and Toyota Prius: A Post-St. Paddy's Day Showing of the Green

I've got the use of a chain saw for a day or two, so my time is going to be invested in cutting up some big branches that dropped off the towering pine trees in my back yard this winter. In lieu of creating some original prose for my blog, here is a link to the auto review I did for the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight. I'm not a huge fan of hybrids, but they are worthy of a look see nonetheless. Go to http://car-data.com/toyota-prius-and-honda-insight-go-green-without-spending-a-lot-of-it-p1280-128.htm.

Read More

Those Putting Their Lives on the Line Should be Able to Drink a Beer

I see there is a movement afoot in Alaska to lower the drinking age for members of the military from 21 to 18. The reasoning of the Alaskan legislator sponsoring the bill is that if we ask our kids to serve and possibly die for us, shouldn't we treat them as adults? Why, yes we should.

In fact, age 21 as the federally mandated legal drinking age is purely an arbitrary number anyway. If 21, why not 20, 22 or 25, which is what most rental car agencies consider the magic age when a person suddenly becomes more responsible? Why not 50? At age 18 our government has deemed a person responsible enough to vote in an election and be killed in a far-off war, but not responsible enough to drink a beer. Hmmmm...

Of course, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) has come out against the proposed Alaska bill. MADD, having achieved its original stated goals of substantially reducing drunk driving fatalities and establishing 0.8 as the legal limit for blood alcohol content (BAC), continues to work tirelessly to ban all alcohol. Why? For one thing, MADD is big business. It's a money machine. Greed has assumed control of this "nonprofit" organization and it has set its sights on whatever keeps the money flowing. And, according to the Better Business Bureau,  it flowed to the tune of $44,450,000 in 2010.

Eric Hoffer once said, "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket." MADD is there. It is no longer simply interested in getting dangerously drunk drivers off the road; it wants alcohol banned, period. According to a statement from the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP), "Mothers Against Drunk Driving spends most of its time in self-perpetuating fund-raising efforts." In evaluating MADD, AIP recently issued it a grade of "D".

Furthermore, MADD's founder, Candice Lightner, officially left the organization in 1985, five years after starting it, because its efforts had shifted from curbing drunk driving to a much wider, anti-alcohol agenda. Oh, and MADD of Canada is pushing a 0.5 BAC as the legal limit; can MADD in this country be far behind? Drink a beer; drive your car; go to jail.

Now where was I? Oh yes, the move to permit 18-year-old members of the military to drink in Alaska. I am all for this bill. I understand that some age standard must be established for alcohol, but until someone proves otherwise, I believe 18 is just as good as 21, particularly for our military.

If this bill passes -- highly unlikely -- it will cost Alaska approximately $50 million a year in federal highway funds. To provoke all states to adopt the federally mandated legal drinking age of 21, the law provides that states not falling into line will lose 10 percent of their federal highway funds. For Alaska, that translates into about $50 million. Can you say, extortion?

So let's see if I have this straight. The federal government collects taxes from citizens of a state; launders that money through its Washington bureaucracy; returns the citizens' money to the state in the form of a highway subsidy; and then uses that subsidy to pound that state into line. Is that about right?

What in the hell is going on here?

Read More