Man of Steel Review

Stop me if you've heard this one.  A wise, celestial being sends his only begotten son to Earth, telling him, "You will give them an ideal to strive towards.  They'll race behind you.  They will stumble.  They will fall.  But in time, they will join you in the sun", and "You can save them all".  The son is raised by an ordinary, yet noble, hard working man.  At the age of 33, the son reveals his identity and origin to the world, performing works of wonder to save humanity from an enemy they couldn't possibly fight themselves.

Sound familiar?  Of course it does!  I'm referring to Superman!



I don't want to give too much away, but a few things really stood out to me.  First, the writers changed some details of Superman's origin, though not the overall story.  It should still satisfy most comic book nerds.

Second, Superman's Kryptonian parents play a much bigger role in this movie than in previous iterations of the story.  Russell Crowe did a great job as Jor-El, Superman's father.  He was back in "Gladiator" mode.  Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, as his Earthly parents, didn't have as much to do, so they really didn't have an opportunity to shine.

Third, there's a strong theme about the influence fathers have on their sons running through the script.  I've noticed a lot of that in superhero movies lately.  Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man and Wolverine all have "daddy issues" in their current movie incarnations.  Some are straight out of the source material, some are new.  I don't know if that is a case of lazy writing, or a real reflection of current cultural issues.

Fourth, Superman's Kryptonian enemy, General Zod, is far superior in this movie to his previous appearance in Superman II.  His motivations are clearer and make more sense, and Michael Shannon was excellent.  He was intense and menacing without being cheesy.


Zod and his henchmen are the perfect foils for Superman.  Together, they're more powerful than he is.  They can actually threaten him.  I really don't see how other villains will stack up (with one exception I'll discuss later).

That brings me to another point.  This Superman is less powerful than previous ones.  He gets fatigued, hurt, even injured.  He strains against huge weights to the point of exhaustion.  I see that positively.  Previous Superman stories make him too powerful.  Nothing can hurt or threaten him (except for Kryptonite).  Where's the drama in that?

The one theme that runs most prominently through the story, however, is that of Superman as a Christ figure, as I detailed at the beginning of this post.  I read one review that claimed this wasn't so, since Superman does not sacrifice himself in this movie.  However, Christopher Nolan, who produced "Man of Steel", directed the latest Batman trilogy with a clear story arc linking all three films.  I suspect this will be a similar case.  I predict the next movie will feature Lex Luthor, and the last will feature Doomsday.

Speaking of directing, the special effects were astounding, the fight scenes were exciting and the story never really let up, all of which we expect from director Zack Snyder.

What's not to like?  Well, the excessive amounts of unnecessary shaky cam and weird close-ups.  Also, Aimee and I both thought Amy Adams was miscast as Lois Lane.  She's an outstanding actress, but she just didn't pull off the part of a hard-nosed, tenacious reporter.  Other than that, not much.

"Man of Steel" is a fun, exciting, entertaining, intergalactic slug-fest.  But it's much more than that.  The best superhero movies use the outlandish fantasy inherent to them to convey universal themes found in the best stories, from Homer to today.  The "Dark Knight" trilogy did that better than any other, but I suspect a "Man of Steel" trilogy may surpass it.

Capitalism is Good for the Environment

Remember the Kyoto Protocol?  It's alright if you don't.  Nobody else seems to.  Which is funny, because "Environmentalists" warned of war, famine, pestilence and death if the world didn't ratify it.  No, seriously.  

Then-VP Al Gore signed the treaty, but the US Senate never ratified it, making it invalid in the US.  Leftists, of course, blamed President Bush, because everything is Bush's fault.  Supposedly, Americans' "Commercialism and greed overcome all common sense and thought for the welfare of future generations. This failure causes hatred not only of the Bush administration, but of American commercialism in general".  Also, the refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was a failure of American leadership in the world.

Sixteen years later, we "greedy" Americans must look more dastardly than ever, right?  Wrong.

In 2012, a surprising twist and without ever ratifying it, the United States became the first major industrialized nation in the world to meet the United Nation’s original Kyoto Protocol 2012 target for CO2 reductions.

 

How is this possible?  How did we "greedy" Americans succeed in meeting the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol - having never ratified it - while all those virtuous nations that enthusiastically signed the treaty failed?

One word.  Frack.

The largest drop in emissions in 2012 came from coal, which is used almost exclusively for electricity generation (see figure below). During 2012, particularly in the spring and early summer, low natural gas prices led to competition between natural gas- and coal-fired electric power generators. Lower natural gas prices resulted in reduced levels of coal generation, and increased natural gas generation—a less carbon-intensive fuel for power generation, which shifted power generation from the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel (coal) to the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel (natural gas).

We know that the increased supply of natural gas in the US economy resulted from advances in, and the increased use of, hydraulic fracturing techniques, which unlock reserves that were previously inaccessible.  We also know that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) techniques became economically viable because of the recent increase in energy prices.  Higher prices created an incentive to invest in fracking.  Fracking increased supply, which, along with innovations spurred by competition, resulted in lower natural gas prices, and that prompted energy producers to switch from coal to natural gas.

In other words, free markets succeeded where bloated, collectivist government mandates failed.  In other words, American "greed" turned out to be more virtuous than multinational "virtue". 

There is another, less rosy possible reason why the US's carbon emissions fell since 2007.  The recession began in 2007, and the American economy remains weak.  A weak economy results in reduced energy consumption and demand.  But I don't think that was a major factor here.  After all, Europe's economy is even weaker than that of the US, but all European nations failed to meet their Kyoto goals.

The lesson here is one sensible people learned when they saw the devastation the Soviet Union caused to its environment - free markets work, even in environmental matters.

But don't expect "Environmentalists" to embrace free market solutions to environmental problems.  "Environmentalists" are, for the most part, watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside.  Environmental concerns are an excuse for them to give government even greater power over people's lives.  No matter how well free market solutions prove to work, most "Environmentalists" will always reject them, because their main concern is not the environment.  Their main concern is bloated, morbidly obese, inescapable government.

Indian Motorcycle's Thunder Stroke V-Twin

Ever since the Indian motorcycle company expired in 1953, it's been like a movie franchise that keeps running long after it's gone stale, producing a worse sequel with each iteration.  Many have tried to resurrect Indian.  All have failed. 

In 2011, international motor sport giant, Polaris, acquired Indian.  At the time, I considered it a mistake.  Polaris already builds the Victory line of cruiser motorcycles, and adding Indian to the mix seemed to me like adding more of the same.  I thought (and still think) Polaris needed to diversify and venture into areas of the motorcycle market Victory does not cover.

Indian just released the first images of their new "Thunder Stroke" 111 cubic inch (1,819 cc) V-Twin engine.  Paul Crowe of "The Kneeslider" writes,

Although it's a brand new engine, they drew heavily from classic Indian engine designs. The 49 degree, 111 cubic inch V-Twin has 3 cams, parallel pushrods and down firing exhausts. The intake is on the left. It's unit construction providing direct drive between the crankshaft and clutch. The 6 speed overdrive transmission handles the 115+ foot pounds of torque.

My first impression is that this engine's internals may have been designed by an engineer, but externally it looks designed by an artist.  Engineers don't build things this pretty.  This looks like an Art Deco sculpture, or something out of a Steam Punk comic book.  It's beautiful.  I can't wait to see the rest of the bike.

I'm not a fan of cruisers, but the reality is that cruisers dominate the American motorcycle market.  Therefore, with few exceptions, manufacturers need strong cruiser lines to perform well in the US, and Polaris seems to be doing very good things with Indian, unlike previous owners. 

I'd love it if Polaris proves me wrong.  An increase in motorcycle manufacturing in the US is a good thing, no matter what style of motorcycles they manufacture.  Besides, if they're successful enough, they'll eventually have to venture out into motorcycle styles I prefer.

That's my hope, anyway.

UPDATE: Motorcycle USA has a lot more information, specifications and photos.  Here's my favorite.

But Indian Motorcycle wasn’t content to solely treat the crowd to the sight and sound of the new V-Twin. They also debuted a custom-built streamliner named the “Spirit of Munro” built to house the Thunder Stroke 111. Named in honor of Burt Munro’s, “Munro Special,” a 1920 Indian Scout that shattered the under-1000cc land-speed record in 1967, this is not a mere replica. Complete with a custom chassis, exhaust, and intake, it features a chain drive conversion for the tall gearing requisite of a streamliner.

If you haven't watched the movie, The World's Fastest Indian, which dramatizes Munro's Bonneville quest, you're missing out big time.

12-Year-Old Girl Shoots Intruder

According to the anti-self-defense crowd, civilians shouldn't be allowed to own guns for self defense because only a SWAT-trained expert is capable defending himself with a gun.  And we know they think women, in particular, are too stupid, flaky, paranoid and impulsive to be trusted with their own self defense. This 12-year-old girls proves them wrong.

By the way, the dirt bag she shot has a history of kidnapping young girls.

Vegan Goes Carnivore, Gets Healthy

Vegetarian diets aren't as healthy as most people assume.  John Nicholson shared his story of transformation with The Independent.

Two years later, we decided to stop eating meat because we used to see all the cattle taken away to the slaughterhouse and we were growing a lot of our own food anyway. That's where the adventure into vegetarianism, wholefoods and healthy eating started. 

People didn't really get us and I was considered a bit of a freak for my diet. But then in the mid-Eighties, copying American guidelines, the British government's healthy-eating advice changed and it started encouraging people to base their diets on carbohydrates rather than protein and fat. By the early Nineties, the whole "five-a-day" thing came into play and diets that included a lot less animal and saturated fat and even vegetarianism became the default healthy-eating advice.

From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

There are a few points to make here.  First, note that government dietary recommendations changed (first in the US) in the late '70s and early '80s.  It just so happens that's when obesity rates began to skyrocket in the US.  Besides the chart to the right, you can also view a time progression that illustrates it even more vividly.  Is it a coincidence?  Possibly, but I don't think so.

Second, when one removes meat from ones diet, one has to make up the volume somehow.  Few "vegetarians" and "vegans" make up that volume with vegetables.  They make it up with grains.  Consequently, most "vegetarians" are actually "grainitarians".  The problem with basing ones diet on grains is that humans aren't designed to do so.  Our digestive systems can't extract a grain's full nutritional value, and grains aren't all that nutrient-dense in the first place, when compared to meat and veggies.  Plus, grains cause insulin spikes that lead to fat storage, and inflammation that leads to joint pain, digestive tract issues and even heart disease.  For a full list of issues with eating grains, follow this link.

Back to Mr Nicholson...

We were very smug about our lifestyle, which we thought was both healthy and morally correct.

Is anyone more sanctimonious than vegans?

But after about six or seven years of being vegetarian, we both started to get slowly and progressively more ill.  The first thing was I started to develop what was later defined as irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS.

Right on cue...

By 1998, it was absolutely chronic. I went to doctors but nobody had a clue what to do about it.... I became clinically obese. I’m 5ft 10in and at one point I was 15 stone [210 lb ~ OS]: quite an achievement on a wholefood, low-fat, (and by this point) vegan diet. On top of that I had one of the highest cholesterol levels that the doctor who took it had seen – 9.2 – and in 2001 they put me on statins.

Yep.  Multiple symptoms of excessive carbohydrate consumption, particularly grains.  Some people are more sensitive to it than others, of course, and Mr Nicholson is probably one of them.

I would take food diaries to the doctor, who would tell me everything was fantastic, and congratulate me on not eating butter, cream and cholesterol. When I asked doctors whether I should change my diet, they told me no.

Even doctors are subject to human failings, like following conventional wisdom despite all evidence to the contrary.

I felt upset to leave veganism behind and took some convincing. In the end, I thought I might as well give it a go. The first thing I ate as part of my new diet was ox liver, so I really threw myself in at the deep end.

Organ meats are some of the most nutritious stuff one can eat.

The second thing I ate that day was a rare steak. That was when I had a transformative experience.... After 24 hours, I never had another IBS episode again. It went overnight. 

I stopped filling my entire meals with carbohydrates – wheat, rice and potatoes – and introduced all meats, butter, cream, lard and goose fat.   

I dropped three and a half stone [49 lb ~ OS] within the first six months. And it wasn’t just weight; what was really freaky about it was that I dropped loads of body fat, going from 28 per cent to 13-14 per cent. In fact, the entire composition of my body changed so I went from being apple-shaped to triangular. And this wasn’t doing a new fitness regime, it was just a change in diet. Even my cholesterol has gone down (on a high-fat animal diet full of cholesterol!) and is now 5.1. I stopped taking statins three years ago.  

My new diet went against all the health advice at the time, which was pretty much eat less meat, fewer animal products, and eat more fruit, vegetables and wholegrain carbohydrates, but I’d never felt better.

Granted, not everyone's experience is as dramatic as Mr Nicholson's.  He's probably more sensitive to the effects of grains than most people, but everyone can benefit from a diet of meat, veggies, fruit, nuts and seeds, little starch and no sugar.

Eat Paleo for Your Teeth

Nice chops, Grok.  Who's your orthodontist?

We know that eating a diet rich in meats, vegetables, fruits and nuts is good for your heart and athletic performance, but now it turns out it's good for your teeth as well.

Prehistoric humans didn't have toothbrushes. They didn't have floss or toothpaste, and they certainly didn't have Listerine. Yet somehow, their mouths were a lot healthier than ours are today. 

"Hunter-gatherers had really good teeth," says Alan Cooper, director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA. "[But] as soon as you get to farming populations, you see this massive change. Huge amounts of gum disease. And cavities start cropping up." 

In most "farming populations", most people eat a largely "vegetarian" (which is really "grainitarian") diet, as opposed to the meat-centric diet hunter-gatherers eat, because peasant farmers can't afford to eat meat, except for rare, special occasions.  The peasant farmers' grain-centric diet is high in simple carbohydrates, and low in protein and fat, as opposed to the high protein, high fat, low carbohydrate diets of hunter-gatherers.  What do all those simple carbs do to the teeth?

Cooper and his research team looked at calcified plaque on ancient teeth from 34 prehistoric human skeletons. What they found was that as our diets changed over time — shifting from meat, vegetables and nuts to carbohydrates and sugar — so too did the composition of bacteria in our mouths.

Not all oral bacteria are bad. In fact, many of these microbes help us by protecting against more dangerous pathogens.

However, the researchers found that as prehistoric humans transitioned from hunting and gathering to farming, certain types of disease-causing bacteria that were particularly efficient at using carbohydrates started to win out over other types of "friendly" bacteria in human mouths. The addition of processed flour and sugar during the Industrial Revolution only made matters worse.

As we already know, the problems caused by high carbohydrate, grain-centric diets aren't limited to the teeth.

"You're walking around with a permanent immune response, which is not a good thing," says Cooper. "It causes problems all over the place."

In addition to oral disease, those problems may include diabetes, obesity and even heart disease. 

This is yet another example of how "vegetarian" diets aren't nearly as healthy as they're cracked up to be. 

Gun Grabbers' War on Women

All last year we heard Leftists accuse those on the Right, and Republicans in particular, of conducting a "war on women".  The "thinking" goes that those of us who don't want to be forced to pay for others' contraceptives and abortions deny women's basic human right to never have to pay for their own contraceptives and abortions.

But let's think - and I mean actually think - about this.  The most basic of all human rights is the right to live, because one has to be alive to exercise any other right.  The right to live is spelled out in the Constitution of the United States.

No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Note that life is the first on the list.  Why?  Because one can't exercise any of the others if one is dead.  Pretty simple, right?  If the right to live is the foundation of all other rights, it stands to reason that the second most basic human right is the right to defend ones life from those who threaten to violate ones right to live.

The right to self defense is not spelled out in the Constitution, probably because at the time it seemed to blindingly obvious that it wasn't necessary.  That is no longer the case, apparently.  However, the framers did include the most effective means by which a person can defend ones life.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The framers meant the 2nd Amendment as a last-ditch measure by which the states and the people could defend themselves from enemies, foreign and domestic.  However, by guaranteeing the individual's right to "keep (own) and bear (carry) Arms (firearms; i.e. guns)", the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own and carry the most effective tools - guns - for defending him/herself from whomever might threaten his/her life.

The right to keep and bear arms, therefore, is the third most fundamental of all rights, because it supports ones right to defend ones right to live, without which all other rights are meaningless.

Though crucial for all humans, the right to bear arms is more important for women than men, because men are - on average - bigger and stronger than women and most criminals are men.  A gun can give a woman the power to defend herself from a rapist....



...or a violent home invader...

The woman was getting out of the shower when she was met by a strange man with a kitchen knife, police said.... 

The woman tried to fight the man off with a shower a rod, and he forced her into her bedroom, police said. They said she told her attacker she had money in the room. But she grabbed a .22-caliber handgun and shot the man nine times, police said. 

Police said the man ran out of a back door and collapsed in the yard. He later died at the Gwinnett Medical Center. The victim, who was injured in the scuffle, was also taken to the hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries.

...or defend her sister from a violent home invader.

Debi Keeney says she last fired her gun 15 years ago, when she took shooting lessons. 

Debi Keeney (right) and her sister Donna Carlyle

Keeney, 55, said a man forced his way into her apartment in Highland, threw her to the floor and then put her sister, Donna Carlyle, 47, in a choke hold. He demanded money as Carlyle gasped for air. 

“All I could see was Donna’s face going blue, like her life was being choked out of her,” said Keeney. 

The alleged intruder, 33, was being treated at a hospital Sunday for two gunshot wounds and was listed in critical condition, police said.

A gun can help a great-grandmother overpower two criminals.



A gun can even empower a little girl to defend herself from three criminals.



By the way, I freaking love that the gun she used to defend herself is pink!  Also, note that none of these women were particularly well trained.  Good training is always better, but the hoplophobes' (people with an irrational fear of armed citizens, i.e. gun grabbers) insistence that one has to be SWAT trained to successfully operate a gun in self defense is a lie (not that they'd let you own a gun even if you are "qualified").

But hoplophobes just don't see it that way.  They think you ladies simply don't possess the judgement necessary to even identify a threat, much less neutralize it with a gun.

It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.

Got that, ladies?  You're too stupid, flaky, paranoid and impulsive to be trusted with your own self defense.  That may come as a surprise to the following lady.

According to deputies, the woman says Sandoval grabbed a knife, put the knife to her chin and told her to take off her clothes. The woman told deputies she then reached under her pillow, grabbed a loaded gun and shot him. She fled from her home and called 911. 

Officials say Sandoval died at the scene.

Besides, according to "Liberal" blowhard, Bob Beckel, campus rape is a myth.



That might come as a surprise to Amanda Collins.

Amanda Collins is a young rape survivor. While in college in 2007, she was raped 50 feet away from the campus police department office at the University of Nevada-Reno and was lucky to get out alive. Her attacker was James Biela, a serial rapist who raped two other women and murdered another. He attacked her at gun point in a gun free zone. At the time of the attack, Collins was in possession of a concealed weapons permit but was not in possession of her firearm due to university policies prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on campus. She was also a second degree blackbelt at the time and walked to the parking garage with a large group of people. 

"If I had been carrying that night, two other rapes would have been prevented and a young life would have been saved...  I could see the police cruisers less than 50 feet away from me, from where I was being attacked but the moment I saw those cruisers, I knew at the same time that no one was coming for me....they were all off duty. The offices had closed. They weren't in their cruisers, there was no one there. A whistle wouldn't have gotten anybody's attention. It was isolated, it was late at night. It's really frustrating that I'm supposed to hand over my own protection to a man but they're not able to guarantee our protection and the comments that this representative made about women not knowing if they're going to be raped or accidentally shooting the wrong person was extremely offensive because he specifically targeted female students. So, is he saying that all women are unable to make sound decisions in the midst of that, that we should go against our God given gut instinct that something was wrong? I knew something was wrong the moment I was grabbed from behind." 

Red-tape and university policies led to this happening and empowered Biela while punishing Collins. 

"I was legislated into being a victim," Collins said.

Got that?  She was in a "gun-free", "safe zone" when serial rapist Biela raped her at gunpoint.  Boy, those "gun-free zones" sure prevent crime, don't they?  Just ask anyone in Chicago.

What advice would a hoplophobe give a potential rape victim on campus?

Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead!  It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
Remember, every emergency situation is different.  Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.  

Got that, ladies?  "Only you can decide which action is most appropriate", unless you decide using a gun is the most appropriate action to defend yourself, in which case, you're too mentally unstable to be trusted to make your own decisions.  Besides, urinating, defecating, menstruating, diseases and whistles are far superior defensive weapons than guns.  Everybody knows that.  Oh, and passive resistance, too.

A 36-year-old Miami mother of two was walking out of a restaurant Thursday when she was held up for her purse. CBS4 out of Miami reported even after she relinquished her bag, the robber still shot her in the face.

But those are just some morons in Colorado and an idiot on TV.  They don't represent "Liberals" in general, right?  Maybe they do.

“I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” Biden said. 

“You don’t need an AR-15—it’s harder to aim,” he added, “it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!”

Not only is the VP's advice tactically unsound, it's illegal.

Garey said that under Biden's scenario, Jill Biden could be charged with aggravated menacing, a felony, and reckless endangering in the first degree.

But, more to the point of this blog post, the lady who asked him the question believes his answer was sexist.

“I think it was poor advice, and it comes off a little sexist,” Ernest added. “Like, ‘Let me tell you what you need’ versus, you know, ‘Arm yourself or protect yourself in a way that you feel necessary.’”

Here we go again.  Women just can't be trusted with an AR-15, which probably comes as a surprise to every woman who's ever served in the US Army and Marine Corps.  But, really, that's what it comes down to for all of us; "let me tell you what you need".  "Liberals" believe they know what you and I need better than you and I do.  What do you think?  Who knows better what you need; some politician somewhere, or you?

So, who's conducting the real "war on women"?  Nobody has the right to force anyone else to pay for their lifestyle choices, but unless a person has voluntarily relinquished their rights by committing a crime, every human being has the right to defend themselves.  "Liberals" want to take away a woman's best self defense tool, thereby violating her right to defend herself, thereby empowering anyone who wants to violate her.

"Liberals" are conducting the real war on women.