What a terrible book. It’s rare that I pick-up a book that I can’t even finish, but this one was incredibly tough to sit through and I had to put it down. I was on a plane trying to push through this book and even with no where to go and nothing else to do, I had to put this book down and stare out the window! It’s that bad, folks.

And it’s really a shame to say that because the author, Michael Blitz, does a magnificent job of researching what is included in this book. That said, what is included is nothing more than a series of applications of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s name. He cites websites, newspaper articles, magazines, reporters, etc, that all use the term “Schwarzenegger” to describe something that is bigger or better than the rest. This is actually a fun exercise for the first few pages. Then it gets tiresome by about page 50. Then you hit page 100 and you want to hit somebody. I flipped around to later in the book just to get by this mind-numbing public masturbation of the Schwarzenegger name and it continues all the way through.

How many f’ing times can you go over pop culture’s use of Schwarzenegger’s image, likeness, and catchphrases? How many times can you emphasize that Schwarzenegger is used because he’s a big, giant man who realized the American Dream? Alright! We get it! Damn it - one could cover these points in a few pages and move on to why Schwarzenegger really matters.

Schwarzenegger matters because he ignited a revolt against a broken system of government in California. He’s important because regular people made an irregular decision and asked an irregular candidate to be their leader. He’s important because he’s given the people exactly what they wanted and he’s done it in a public manner that leaves nothing to closed door meetings or secret dealings. THAT is why Arnold Schwarzenegger is important.

He’s not important because of the million and two pop culture references he gets each day. Come on - how vapid a book can one write!? Overall, I admire the depth of the author’s research, but there is nothing worth reading in this book. I advise you to spend your time more wisely and if you DO decide to bring this book with you on a plane, please carry a back-up!

By the way, you can read most of this book on Google Books by clicking this link. But don’t be a fool like I was - once you get bored, move on!

On Saturday mornings, I generally try to get a lot of “work” done whether it be cleaning my room or cleaning up the kitchen or doing work for my job or the website business, etc. Generally, I have a show or two on that does a recap of the week’s events in the business, social, and global worlds. The other morning, I overheard some of the talking heads have a conversation about eliminating homework for young people.

The argument was that young people are saddled with two or more hours of homework each night and it is too much for them to complete the homework and develop a cogent social image. The talking heads went back and forth with all of the usual arguments in this debate (blame the teachers’ unions, blame the “teach to the test” mentality, blame parents, blame the kids, etc). Lots of blaming going on.

Then one of the guests said something along the lines of, “Kids become smart by getting engaged in math, reading, the arts, physical education - all of it!” And that made me think about what - in my view - makes a young person grow “smart.” I think I figured it out.

In my book, reading is the base of intelligence. I’m sure that most of you would agree that being literate is the base of the learning experience, but in terms of growing and expanding your knowledge on all issues, I think reading is the stimulant. However, reading is not alone in this effort. There are two other necessities which I believe are closely related to reading that ultimately lead to an increased intelligence - comprehension and writing ability.

It does no good to read all of the books in the world if you’re just acting as a computer and processing words on a page. This is where I believe teachers have their greatest impact on young minds. On the very same dime, this is a scary part of the education process as teaching comprehension is one of those areas where an inherent bias from a teacher can shape a child’s future views. Very scary.

The writing process is also one that encourages learning because it takes reading and comprehension to a different level. In other words, students can learn how to read (and read a lot) and then learn how to understand what they are reading, but going through the process of writing a piece that someone ELSE will have to read is putting all of these intangibles together. Writing is the culmination of this process (though at the professional level, getting published is the culmination!).

That’s how I believe a student can become smart - reading (a lot) and understanding what the student is reading and then ultimately producing a written work that others will read and have to be able to understand. And, for the record, this applies to literature, math, science, arts, etc. I would also think it is obvious that students should be engaging in this process both in and out of the classroom (in other words - YES, there should be some homework for students).

Boring. Completely boring. Lucky for me, viewing this film did not cost me anything because if I spent ANY money on this train wreck, I would be real hot right now. My apologies go out to my roommate who enjoyed this movie - I didn’t care for it.

The premise of the movie is just absurd. Santa Claus was always a great person - even as a little child. So he becomes a Saint and now his family is sorta frozen in time forever. Weird. But, you see, Santa’s older brother is jealous of his family’s love for Santa. Fast forward to the future and apparently some efficiency expert is looking to shut down Santa’s factory. Absolutely no connection to the premise that Santa is immortal and exists to serve children for eternity. Awkward. And it goes on like this with the rest of the movie - new premises popping up all over the place.

What the hell does an efficiency expert have to do with the North Pole? That is one of the dumbest plots for a Christmas movie that I’ve ever heard! That’s worse than Santa with Muscles!

That said, I could see the appeal to casual Christmas movie fans or just movie fans. Vince Vaughn does his part pretty well as does Paul Giamotti. How great of an actor is Paul Giamotti? Other than those two, though, I really didn’t find much to like about this movie. I found it to be bland and really written for either small children who are excited to see Santa on screen or people who just want to watch something that takes up a few hours of their lives.

Actually, the scene with the “other” siblings is hilarious. George Clinton, one of the Baldwin brothers, Frank Stallone - pretty funny stuff right there!

And I know that sounds somewhat rough for a review, but as a big fan of Christmas and a big Christmas movie buff - I just couldn’t stomach this one. My suggestion is to not go out of your way to see this movie either now or later. You’ll get a better showing out of The Santa Clause or Bad Santa or It’s a Wonderful Life, etc.

I’m a little bit divided on this movie. The visuals are great, which we’ve come to expect from Dreamworks (the makers of Shrek), and the story is cute and fun - definitely something you’ll want to bring the kids to if you’re looking for something cartoony. But I didn’t really like something about the movie - not sure what it was, though.

Actually, I think it was Jerry Seinfeld. He didn’t attempt to change his voice in any respect nor did he attempt to create a new character voice. There was little excitement behind his vocal performance, too. It was just like watching the Seinfeld sitcom…with bees. Very weird.

There was also the almost too obvious “green” overtones in the movie. I don’t really know if it’s worth making a movie with such strong underlying currents. Yeah, I’m all about a greener lifestyle and a harmonious environment, but if you’re making a kids’ movie, then focus on making the kids happy!

I thought the story, itself, was sort of lacking. The idea that a bee can speak and start a revolution against the honey industry is a bit of a stretch. Of course, without accepting that premise you really don’t have a movie. I thought the movie started strong, though, with the shortened “training” time for a bee and how they spend the rest of their lives in one occupation working for the betterment of the hive. The story got interesting when Seinfeld went out with the gathering bees to gather pollen and then cross pollinate the local park. But as soon as it hit the love story/bee revolt I quickly lost interest.

If you can get this movie on DVD from a friend, it’s probably worth watching for the amazing graphics alone. But don’t go out of your way to spend any money on buying the DVD or spending a gross amount of money renting it.

As I was driving across the state the other morning, I noticed a lot of people on their cell phones. This got me thinking that maybe there were other places that these folks would rather be (perhaps where they were headed). During one of the extended Howard Stern commercial breaks, I started to move this thought around in my head and I assumed that the people on their phones, no matter who they were talking to, were trying to make something happen that would benefit them and/or their companies.

Before I take this post in a direction where I don’t want it to go, let me redirect a bit. I began wondering what I would be able to accomplish in life if I didn’t have any of the generic responsibilities that people are saddled with today. In other words, could I make my classes more interesting for my students if I didn’t have to spend 10 hours per day away from my home office? Further, would I be able to really explode my small website business if, again, I didn’t have those 10 hours each day away from my home office and if I could spend that time selling my services around my community?

Let’s flip it the other way around. What if I lived closer to my day job and I didn’t have the Adjunct Professor position or the small business? What would I be capable of accomplishing at the office if all I had to worry about was my occupation? Further, since I work for a small nonprofit where there is no real upward mobility, wouldn’t I be able to hyper-focus on my current set of clients and really learn their needs as well as the overall business more?

But the thoughts that really led me to write this post are really more artistic in nature. Imagine if a part-time writer didn’t have any bills or any familial responsibility and could focus on being creative. How about a great artist that holds a job he or she hates during the day, but makes magnificent paintings in his or her spare time? This applies to anyone - a musician who is a weekend singer because she has to work during the week, an artisan who does world-class woodworks at night because he has to hold a 9 - 5 to pay the mortgage, a budding scientist who is researching a new phenomenon in his spare time, etc.

My thoughts went further (it’s a long drive to work, folks!) and then I turned the argument in on itself. Are there people who have this type of situation? Absolutely. Those with no real-world responsibilities (families, jobs, bills, etc) have all of the time in the world. However, these are often the most inexperienced people out there or, worse, many of these are pampered people who turn to drugs to fill a void in their life. Not the group of people that you want beginning a new creative wave in the population!

But there are folks who have this amount of freedom in their lives. Those who do not have to take on the burdens of debt to afford a society-required education; those who make a good wage and are in financial control or financially free; those who have worked for a few decades and raised a loving family and are now getting ready to retire. Our world has the possibility to be very creative and for people to be in control of their own lives.

Then the asshole in front of me hit the breaks when no one was in front of him (idiot!) and I had to hit the breaks really quick! In a split second I was brought back to 195, headed to Trenton, on a cold December day, with 10,000 things to do before I could get back in my truck (after night has fallen) and head back to Monmouth County to teach my class.

Ah…life!

The Chief Executive Officer of Square-Enix made the comments below the other day. For me, these are really dumb comments made by the CEO of a really great company:

“The Wii is the antithesis of the Xbox 360,” he adds. “Xbox 360 is strictly for hardcore gamers. The attachment rate for the Xbox 360 is much higher than for the Wii. People who buy the 360 really like games.”

Regarding Sony, Wada believes they need to position the PS3 explicitly as a game machine instead of a supercomputer that also plays Blu-ray movies.

For those FF fans out there, this has got to be concerning. Sure, the CEO’s comments about Sony and the PlayStation 3 are pretty dead-on, but doesn’t reality prove his Wii and XBox comments to be false? Aren’t Wii owners completely infatuated with the younger, less-powerful system because it is strictly “fun to play?” Further, aren’t many XBox owners aggravated that they are paying a great deal of money for nothing more than a PC in console’s clothing and the always-feared “red ring of death?”

I’m not sure if my younger brother gets on to my blog too much any more, but he purchased an XBox 360 a few months ago and it has since had a bunch of technical problems. I brought the Wii home for Thanksgiving and I thought it was a hit. I think the CEO of Square-Enix may need to re-evaluate his definition of people who “really like games.”

And bring Final Fantasy back to Nintendo already, damn it!

The New York Times online is just packed with good articles today! As I was flipping around I noticed this one about the video game industry. I try to stay abreast of what’s going on in the video game industry since I really believe that their cutting edge technology will change the future. The devices and mechanisms used in the United States military were developed by video games and I’m confident that this industry will continue to bring new and innovative technologies to the mass market into the future. Did you know that some doctors are studying actual online role-playing games to watch public reactions to new diseases? I read an article about that somewhere - try Googling it if you’re interested.

I should also say that I’m very interested in investing in some of these companies, hence one of the reasons why I keep an eye on them.

The Times posted an article talking about the merger between Activision and Vivendi Universal’s game unit last Sunday. I found the following bit of text very poignant:

Until recently, it seemed that the only way the game industry knew how to grow was to keep drilling deeper into its core demographic of tech-savvy young men who had few interests beyond cleavage, explosions and touchdowns. And that vein was just about tapped out: over the last few years, the growth of industry bellwethers like Electronic Arts has slowed to a crawl.

But then, over three successive autumns, true visionaries demonstrated a new way to conceive of video games — not merely as a niche pastime for geeks but as the next mainstream entertainment medium, one that could appeal to women, families, older people and all the other demographic groups the industry had forgotten about.

In terms of profits, Nintendo has dominated the competition. Microsoft is dead-set on creating a quasi-computer that runs video games and calling it an XBox and Sony is very concerned about being the center of your home entertainment world. Nintendo focuses on video games and fun; this is why they are so successful.

Anyway, interesting article that I thought some of you may enjoy.

Below is a link to an article posted at the New York Times website this morning. I’m not sure why, but I found it very powerful. The gist of the story is that a woman who was very private decided to stop talking to people in the early 1990’s. People last saw her alive in 2005. The police forced their way into her home a few days ago and found her skeletal remains - complete with winter coat on ready to go out.

The assumption is that she had been dead for between one year and eighteen months.

Anyway, the story is linked below. Again, I found it very powerful for some reason.

Neighbors Reflect on A Death No One Noticed

A few weeks ago I read an article that decried the satellite radio business as not living up to its promise. No, not the promise of commercial-free content because that’s not what they are promising (except with music - Sirius promises commercial-free music and boy do they deliver). What I am referring to is the theoretical promise of satellite radio.

That promise is a marketplace where YOU can pay for services that are to your liking and receive them on a limited interruption basis. For the purposes of this entry, I absolutely believe that Howard Stern is delivering on the promise of specific content tailored to a certain demographic. His channels are not only the most listened to on all of satellite radio (including the higher-subscribed-to XM), but they actually have a variety of topics and personalities that appeal to a broad audience (you’d be surprised). I’ve personally become a big fan of Bubba the Love Sponge since I first heard him on Howard 101, but that’s a different story.

However, Howard Stern and his crew are NOT delivering on the promise of limited interruptions for this PAY service. I understand that the talk channels do have some degree of commercial interruption and that’s fine by me. Gotta pay the bills, right? But the commercial breaks on Howard 100 and Howard 101 are - at this point - out of control. And I stress “at this point” because this was not always the way it was on these channels. When Howard started on Sirius, he had such limited interruptions that they amounted to some 20 minutes or so on his first show and even that was just a musical break or two.

But today, not only are we (the paying subscribers) subjected to 10 minutes or more of straight non-original, commercial content, but we are subjected to this crap on an increasing basis. I should take this opportunity, though, to point out that my definition of commercial and their definition of commercial is almost certainly different. I define anything that is not original, live content as a commercial. And please, don’t try to use 3rd grade logic with me about how by my limited definition then all of the replays are commercials. That’s BS and anyone with an education higher than grade school should understand that concept.

When Howard goes to commercial and you hear some lead out garbage phone call or sound clip, that doesn’t count as original, live content for me. When it flips to Howard 100 news for 5 or 6 minutes, that is also part of my definition of “commercial” - as is the downright insulting “lead-in” when they are back from commercial break. Why is the lead-in insulting? Well, they generally play some song during the lead-in. That’s what I want from the talk channel…a song. A fucking song?!?! Are you kidding me? I have dozens and dozens of commercial-free channels and one of the few talk channels that I listen to is going to play a fucking song? What bullshit.

On a related note, I can’t tell you how amazingly arrogant and aggravating it is to hear him say with such concern that he and the gang, “have GOT to take a commercial break!” Alright, we understand that Stern has contracts with advertisers and he must live up to his end of the contract. But we’re not dipshits! We’re not stupid! He has these contracts in place NOT because management is forcing him to have a ton of advertisers; rather he has those contracts in place because he’s trying to maximize his profit potential. Any business student understands that and they, like me, are probably fine with it. The problem is that Stern is not living up to the theoretical promise of satellite radio.

In any event, the next time you are on a long trip in the car take out your watch and time how long it takes from Howard to say, “We’ll be right back,” to him actually talking on the air again. It’ll be ten minutes at least (if you can stick with it that long). This is not the promise of satellite radio. In some respects, all Howard has managed to do on satellite radio is re-create the terrestrial radio template. It’s sad. Is it enough to have me cancel my Sirius subscription? Well, I don’t think so - unless, of course, they don’t bring back Bubba the Love Sponge after his contract expires!

The Asbury Park Press has the second highest circulation in the state. Pretty impressive (the Star-Ledger far outpaces the Press). Last week, the Press flipped over to a new, higher-tech website over at APP.com.

I’ll be honest - I think the new website is garbage. I used to be able to find all of the Monmouth County news in one spot and now it’s broken down by township. Listen, as a webmaster and Owner of a website design company I understand the desire for increased hits. Higher hits lead to greater click-through rates on advertisements and thus more income. Simple enough to understand.

But good grief…to have to click on each hometown to get Monmouth County news in total - it’s just too tedious for me. Like most of the online news consuming public, I only have a short period of time in the morning where I check for top stories in my area. By no means do I have the time to check each and every hometown so I can get my total Monmouth fill.

Here’s hoping that Gannett doesn’t destroy the Daily Record website next.