I came to appreciate Kevin Smith for his film Chasing Amy. Like all of his early movies, Chasing Amy works because it’s well cast and well written, but not necessarily because it’s well directed. It’s not, but Kevin Smith will be the first to admit that he’s not really a directer. He’s a writer. However, once I saw Red State, I have to disagree with him. Smith has said over and over that after Red State he’s “got one more movie in him” — his hockey epic, Hit Somebody. This is an utter tragedy because after watching Red State, I’m of the opinion that Kevin Smith has finally learned to make movies as well as he writes them.

Enough preamble though, here’s why Red State is worth your dollars to own, and your time to watch.

A unique, relevant and compelling story
What’s important to understand from the outset is that Red State is a religio-political horror movie. It’s not a comedy, though it is funny. It’s not a thriller, although it is thrilling. Kevin Smith’s synopsis on his podcasts has been “Three boys go into the woods to find sex. Instead, they find God.” The story centers around the Five Points Church, an extreme right wing religious group based in part on Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church group (the “God hates fags” people who love to protest military funerals and anything else they can show up to) and one part on the Branch Davidians (the group involved in the ATF’s infamous Waco, TX incident). Although they are also protesting funerals with an anti-LGBT message, Red State‘s Five Points Church is not intended to be a stand-in for either group. In fact, Fred Phelps is mentioned by name in the film as someone other than Five Points’ Abin Cooper, played by Michael Parks.

The story starts in typical Kevin Smith style, with plenty of raunchy talk and snappy dialogue. The plot gets rolling when the three boys we meet in the beginning of the movie make their way up to the town of Cooper’s Dell for an internet sex hookup. We quickly learn that aside from their funeral protests, the Five Points Church is (SPOILER ALERT) trapping people with sex, then executing them inside their church compound because it’s “what the book says.” That book is, of course, the Bible. The first person we see Abin Cooper and his “family” execute is a homosexual teenager. This, as the three boys we met in the beginning of the film look on in horror, knowing that they’re probably next. The sequence is riveting and you realize that the horror in this horror movie is not in the violence, but the religious extremism of the Five Points Church congregation. Act one ends with the boys getting loose, and through a series of mishaps, the true nature of Five Points Church’s activities comes to the attention of the authorities — mostly through gunfire.

Act two introduces us to ATF agent Joseph Keenan, played by John Goodman. Keenan is awoken by a phone call from his superiors and inevitably has to go deal with the Five Points Church situation. Once there, he’s joined by the ever wise-cracking Kevin Pollak, who is simultaneously hilarious and credible as a jaded ATF agent. I won’t spoil the climax or the denouement, but I will say that how Goodman and Park’s characters finally meet face to face is one of the most brilliant bits of plot writing in recent memory. It’s surprising, mysterious and had me sold hook, line and sinker. It was especially satisfying given my own religious upbringing, as I instantly knew which part of the Christian doomsday mythos Smith was referencing.

The third act of Red State is almost entirely Kevin Smith doing what Kevin Smith does best: telling a story in dialogue. John Goodman is giving a debriefing deposition to two gentlemen from the Department of Homeland Security regarding the incident at Cooper’s Dell. Pay special attention to Agent Hammond, played by Mad Men alum Patrick Fischler. He delivers the essential morale of the story, which I won’t spoil for you here. I will say that it’s a bit of preaching that the movie earns. In a single sentence, Hammond delivers a poignant commentary on religious extremism that lands like an anvil from a cliff top.

Immaculate casting, cinematography and dare I say it, directing
Red State is as well cast as it is well written. It’s a very “tight” little movie and the cast of actors bring it to life could not be better matched to their task. Michael Parks is downright haunting as Abin Cooper. Melissa Leo as the manic Five Points matriarch, Sara Cooper, is as frightening as any knife-weilding slasher I’ve ever seen in her desperate, frantic fanaticism. John Goodman’s performance as the tired, conflicted Agent Joseph Keenan commands the screen whenever he’s on camera. I was charmed to see Buffy the Vampire Slayer alum Marc Blucas in a smallish role as an ATF sniper. Stephen Root is brilliant as the closeted local Sheriff. And of course, Kevin Pollak is delightfully himself as Goodman’s ATF partner. The whole ensemble cast simply works.

Watching Red State, I also couldn’t help but notice how good looking it was. The Kevin Smith movies I know and love were schlocky-looking at best, but it didn’t matter because we weren’t there for the visual arts. Red State is gorgeous. It’s so well shot and I couldn’t help but lovingly think “he finally learned how to make a movie. Good for him!” Knowing that Kevin Smith also edited the film himself, he really does deserve full credit for how well made this movie is. I didn’t think he had it in him. I knew the guy could write, but knowing that Red State is his penultimate film, I’m actually kinda bummed that he’s getting out of directing. It’s that little bit of outrage. “This!? This is what you were capable of all along? And now you’re quitting?”

Will you enjoy this movie?
Tastes vary widely, obviously, but let me take a stab. The obligatory preamble about language and adult situations applies. This is an R rated movie, after all. However, you don’t need to be a fan of the horror genre to enjoy this movie. I’m not. You don’t need to be a die-hard Jay & Bob fan. There are no “snoochy booches” inside jokes. You don’t need to be a hard core liberal or an anti-religion subscriber to Richard Dawkins and the like. The message of Red State is relevant to us all, regardless of our faith or our political leanings. However, I think that if you are a fan of Quentin Tarantino’s movies, you owe it to yourself to see Red State. If you appreciate writing over star power, explosions and tits, then you’ll likely appreciate what Kevin Smith has done here. Most of all though, Red State is a movie that needs to be seen. It was a movie made almost entirely outside “the system” of corporate Hollywood. It’s the kind of movie that gets made when a talented artist has something worth saying — has an actual point of view worth sharing.

So stream it. Buy it. Do whatever you have to do, but watch Red State if you can. It will never be more relevant than it is right now, both to our culture and to the industry of movie making. It’s the halo work of art — the siren song to independent storytellers everywhere that, as Kevin Smith himself puts it, “If this monkey can make a movie this good, you can too!”

The shuttle program started in 1981, the year I was born, and I can’t help but feel a deep connection with the now iconic spacecraft. We both turned 30 this year. I remember seeing the Challenger explode. That disaster is my earliest memory of a big news event. When I was a little kid — probably four or five — my favorite toy was a Space Shuttle Transformer. I lost that toy somewhere in our old house and can still remember how sad I felt when we moved and I still hadn’t found it. But beyond childhood memory, as an adult I’ve come to more fully appreciate not just the sheer nerd-factor awesomeness of the Shuttle as a vehicle, but the immense, epic nature of what we had to accomplish to get to where we are in terms of space technology and capability. The problems solved, the technology invented, the risks taken, the lives lost — all in the name of “slipping these surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God”, as Reagan put it.

Frankly, it bugs the hell out of me that we’ve stopped this program without a real replacement (a decision made by the Bush administration, not President Obama, who has actually expanded critical NASA funding). It further bothers me that for no other reason than partisan politics and an ignorant, apathetic public, NASA is being forced into an ever steepening trajectory of privatization. If anything ever fully kills our exploration of the universe, it’ll be a quarterly stock report. We’ll never set foot on Mars or develop the technologies that for all we know will someday save our entire species from extinction if every day’s decisions have to please stockholders’ share price expectations. Even though as is, the space program has indirectly created entire multi-billion dollar industries out of the technology pioneered to get people and equipment into the black void of space and home again safely. Like so much that ails our nation right now, it’s unfortunate, short-term thinking.

Partisan nonsense and short-term speculation aside, the Space Shuttle program — and by extension the entire manned space program — represents many of mankind’s greatest achievements. I really do believe that it represents the best of America and the best of humanity. It’s our insatiable hunger for exploration. It’s our uncanny ability to collaborate and solve problems. It’s our tenacious belief that “impossible” is only a matter of dates. It’s our careful concern for one another and our acknowledgement of the fragility of life. It isn’t enough just to fire people off the planet. We have to bring them home again. We have to take immense risks in the face of incredible danger to spend time in an environment of almost unfathomable hazard. Most of all, the space program is our most ambitious, long-term thinking. We live in a world where people are often looking no further than their next meal or their next episode of television (delivered by satellites in space, ironically). Or at most, thinking no further than this quarter’s balance sheet. That we as a country and a species dedicate a small slice of our time and resources to what really is the future gives me a lot of hope. We need to keep doing that. It’s important that we have a future.

In most science fiction lore, but Star Trek and Doctor Who especially, space exploration is what helps us get our shit together as a species. It’s the catalyst of not only our survival, but our thriving success across the universe. I believe in that potential. I believe that it’s only by looking beyond our greedy present and our little blue ball that we can actually save ourselves and our home planet. Not just through technology, but through collaboration, through unification of purpose, through acknowledgement of the precious, fragile nature of life — all the things we’ve learned while blasting men and women into orbit. In this, space exploration truly is the tide that raises all boats, and it raises them to the heavens.

So Godspeed, Atlantis. Come home to us safely and may we live up to the legacy you, your brothers in flight, and the heroic crews who flew you, have left us.

There’s a lot of fantastic public outrage going on right now concerning new “security” procedures being taken by the TSA. For the unaware, there are now full-body scanners being used in many airports around the country. This is of concern for two reasons. A) Some TSA person pretty much gets to see you naked whether you like it or not, and B) some of the technologies being used pose health risks and you get very little if any information on which technology is being used in which scanner.

However, that isn’t what bothers me (and many others) to the point of foaming outrage. What’s outrageous is what happens if you “opt out” of the full body scan, which is your right. If you decline the scan, you are escorted to a private room and sexually assaulted. Yes, you read that correctly. There’s no hyperbole or exaggeration in that statement. Let’s not sugar coat it. You will be aggressively groped. A government employee will put their blue gloved hands on your body, including your genitals and chest. It’s worth noting that were a police officer to do this to you, even while arresting you, he or she would be themselves brought up on charges.

So what can you do? There are a handful of things. You should definitely opt out of the scans. But you can also refuse to be taken to the private room for your groping. Make them do it in full view of the other passengers. But if you’re not flying anytime soon (lucky you), you do have other options and I implore you, on behalf of people everywhere, to at least speak out in support of those who do have to travel. Here are some pretty easy things you can do to make waves:

• Contact your representatives — a LOT — write a letter and copy/paste send it to your reps once a week
• Share information about the TSA on your social networks
• Sign petitions such as FlyWithDignity.org
• Talk to your friends and coworkers on purpose about this, especially with the holidays coming up
• Contact your local airport
• Contact the airlines
• Choose airports that don’t have scanners and tell them (and the old airport) about it
• Bottom line: raise a stink about this

In that vein. I’ve written my own Congressmen, Mr. John Kline of Minnesota, and said the following:

Dear Congressman Kline,

I am writing today to voice my outrage at the latest wave of airport security measures taken by the TSA. Specifically, the use of full-body scanning, which many sources are reporting pose significant health risk, and the enhanced “pat down” procedures people are subjected to should they “opt out” of those scans.

I will leave it up to your and our offices to gather further information on the scanning, but I do want to speak specifically at greater length about the enhanced “pat down” procedures. This is a policy that frankly, defies common sense. Why is it that as an air traveler I have now all but completely lost my constitutional rights. I have fewer civil and human rights as an air traveler than I do as a police suspect. This is unacceptable! What’s more, the TSA sexually assaulting people is not making us safer. I know that, and you know that. Given the many security advances we’ve made in luggage screening technology, in hardening aircraft cockpit doors, and resources like the no-fly list, I firmly believe that our security screening procedures are adequate, yet need an overhaul.

But rather than just complain, I’d like to offer a solution. Let’s learn from Israel — a ally who has faced an even greater security threat than our own, and addressed it much more smartly. Please take the time to read this article from the NYT: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199—israelification-high-security-little-bother.

The last thing I’ll say is this: I am not afraid. Every day, someone pulls a gun and robs a convenience store. Yet I still buy gas. I’m not afraid of being robbed. Every day, someone gets drunk, then gets in their car and drives, often killing innocent people. Yet I still drive, because I’m not afraid. Once a year or so, someone brings a gun to their office or their school and murders their peers. I still go to work. I’m not afraid of my coworkers. Yet because nearly ten years ago, a dozen men bent on bad acts took lives using an airplane I am now expected to give up my basic 4th Amendment rights to get on a plane? It’s nonsensical. We both know I’m not actually any safer for it, and in the end, what’s really happened is that the terrorists have succeeded. We are so afraid of them that we are willing to give up one of the indisputable ideals upon which our very nation was founded. I’m not willing to do that. Let’s pursue them to the ends of the earth, but let’s also show them that we’re not afraid of them.

And for the record, I fly almost weekly for business.

Thank you for your time.

Nathaniel Salzman
Eagan, MN

If you do have to fly this holiday season, do keep in mind that November 24 is National Opt Out Day. It’s not even civil disobedience. You don’t have to break the law to take a stand. Let’s channel our inner Rosa Parks and show the TSA that we’re even less afraid of them than we are of the terrorists who, ironically, want to disrupt our way of life and cause us to abandon the things we founded this country on — you know, like the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

When it crossed the Atlantic, the Spirit of St. Louis had a silver nose. The whole plane was silver from tip to tail. The nose panels in particular were fabricated by hand out of aluminum sheeting. Those panels were then brush polished with their signature swirl marks — partly for decoration, but mostly to hide the subtle dents left by shaping hammers and english wheels. In the period photography, even though it’s black and white, it’s easy to see that the nose is not, in fact, gold. Yet as she hangs in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, her nose is a bright gold color. None of the historical accounts, including Lindbergh’s autobiography, explained how the nose of the plane went from silver to gold. It was a mystery, and 15 years ago the internet as we know it didn’t exist. We often said that we should just write the Smithsonian and see if they knew, but we never got around to it.

Today people use Google as a verb and Wikipedia makes the most obscure pieces of information available to your mobile telephone. For some unknowable reason, yesterday I had the thought to search the internet for information as to why the nose on The Spirit is gold. The search engines had nothing for me. Wikipedia made no reference to the nose panels whatsoever. Even the Air and Space Museum’s own website didn’t explain the golden nose. But while poking around, I found a contact form where anyone can send an inquiry to the museum archives staff. So I did! I got an email back a couple hours later saying that my question had been forwarded on to the curator. Less than a day later, I received an email from Dr. F. Robert van der Linden, the Chairman of the Aeronautics Division at the National Air and Space Museum. In his email he said the following:

Dear Mr. Salzman:

The nose of the Spirit of St. Louis is a golden color because of a well-intentioned but mistaken attempt by us to preserve the markings on the cowling.  We don’t know exactly when, but soon after the Smithsonian acquired the Spirit in May 1928, we sought to preserve the markings by applying a clear coat of varnish or shellac.  Unfortunately, over the years, this coating has yellowed with age.  While it has taken on a beautiful golden hue, the color is wrong.  The aluminum cowling should be in its natural silver color.  In the future, when we next conserve the aircraft, we will carefully remove the coating.  This can be done by a painting conservator.  Until then, the Spirit will keep its golden nose.

Sincerely,

Bob

What a fantastic answer! Although it would be great to know exactly when the protective lacquer had been applied, finally knowing the the answer as to why is very satisfying. As far as I know, this information isn’t even part of the exhibit. Not that it’s a big secret, it’s just fun to know things that even the great Google can’t find for you. What’s particularly thrilling, however, is that at some point in the future, the plane will go back to its original coloring. How fun. I’m exceedingly grateful to Dr. van der Linden for his quick, complete and candid response. Mystery solved. With information in hand, it’s now time to update the internet so that other people can find this info too. The moral of the story, support the historical societies that protect the history you care about. Without them, we will forget where we’ve come from and have even less idea where we’re headed.

Photos via Flickr users Rob Shenk and wallyg who were kind enough to share their great work via creative commons licensing.

A couple of my tweeps (@intheloop and @sandentotten) tweeted about the need, I responded, and now they’re featuring my #Obama hashed tweets on MPR’s website starting tonight. Cool. I’ll do my best to be interesting. Tune in.

You can follow my twitter feed here on my site (<—- check out the side bar), on Twitter, or see my and about 5 other local peoples’ #Obama tweets at Minnesota Public Radio.

Also, if you’re interested in my take on a healthcare solution, you can read the comment I made on this Fast Company article.

UPDATE — Definitely a great event, especially on such short notice. The Target Center could have done better getting people in and out of the building more quickly, but we did finally get seated — in the worst two seats in the house. D’oh! Once the upper deck opened up, we headed upstairs and ended up with a much better view. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get any 3G service — so much for Tweeting. As for the event I really appreciated its focus and its brevity. It was not some droning, speechfest with speaker after speaker. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius spoke first, both praising Minnesota on our successes in providing quality healthcare at low cost, and laying down a motivating reiteration of the need for nationwide healthcare reform. Her speech lasted only about five minutes, then it was time for the main event. President Obama appeared stage right, wearing in simply a dress shirt, slacks, no tie, and shaking hands with the edges of the group of medical professionals and other VIPs standing on the arena floor. President Obama was definitely the most dressed-down of the people presented on stage, but in a very down-to-business sort of way.

He got right to it. Obama is known, even by his detractors, as a prolific speaker and that reputation is well deserved. What I appreciated most about his remarks was that they were obviously well prepared, but not overtly formal. That more conversational style made them particularly engaging, I thought. President Obama reiterated the need for reform — siting specific stories, situations, and injustices present in the current system, as well as encouraging us that reform is in fact closer than it’s been in about 70 years. He strongly emphasized that “the status quo is not a viable alternative.” He also refreshingly acknowledged that much of the opposition was more about “defeating Obama” than an objection to healthcare reform. His matter-of-factness is refreshing amidst the acrimony of this debate. The speech had its soaring moments, but mostly it was a nice mix of policy points and factual clarifications. At one point I was worried it was only going to only be overview without the all important details of how. For example, the “how we pay for it” question is one the President has been a bit light on the details. Thankfully, he did actually lay out a series of sensible and seemingly realistic ways that healthcare reform can be theoretically deficit neutral while ensuring forward funding for medicare.

After outlining the policy plans in the most detail to date, President Obama took time out to specifically dispel many of the — hell, let’s go ahead and call them lies — being spread by the President’s fear-mongering opponents, the speech wrapped up with a simple story. He told us the origin of “fired up and ready to go” — how a single voice can change a room. How a room can change a city, a city a state, a state a country and a country the world. This was definitely the most soaring rhetoric of his speech. The place went nuts, of course, with the largest of several standing ovations given the President.

That was that. We made our way out, hopped back on the light rail and headed home. The event didn’t change my views on healthcare, but it did give us all a lot more detail on the actual plan being proposed. This debate has been desperate for clarification, and between this and last wednesday night’s event, the President is starting to do exactly that.

UPDATE — The White House YouTube channel just released the video of the President’s speech. Good stuff.

America is such an odd place. We pave the way in so many areas, yet when you compare us to Europe or Asia (whole continents, mind you), we’ve completely missed the boat on scooters until just this last season. I’m really hoping that gas prices and practicality converge again this summer to continue the upward trend in scooter sales.

The Wired article almost completely misses what Mr. Andreani was actually saying. He isn’t describing a trend within scooters at all. He’s describing a trend toward motorcycle riders wanting automatic transmissions and ending up with a couple more scooter-like machines from the big manufacturers. The only people who would ever really refer to the Burgman or the TMax as scooters are motorcycle riders. Scooterists at their most generous would call them “maxi-scooters.” What’s more, that segment of big scooters is hardly exploding amongst scooter riders — at least here in the US. The TMax is the first new offering in a long while and it’s a net of nothing since Yamaha no longer offers the Majesty.

Mr. Andreani spends just a moment talking about how smaller scooters have trended toward larger wheels, but that’s hardly breaking news. I also take issue with his description of scooters being classified only has “cheap” and “big.” Of course he’s only actually talking about the European market — which is vastly different than the US scooter market — but all the same, it’s a gross oversimplification. The difference between the US market and the rest of the world is a distinction that seems lost on the fine folks at Wired as well. Bigger wheeled scooters are indeed much more popular in Europe, but the overall style here in the US is still geared more toward something with classic Vespa cuteness. That’s what sells here in vast numbers. That’s still the trend. Genuine Scooter Company sells Buddy 125s faster than PGO can make them. Europe and Asia tend toward more modern, sport-styled scooters like PGO’s GMax or most of the Kymco and Piaggio-branded offerings. But the States are still all about cute.

More than anything, his comments don’t relate to any actual trends within scooters and Mr. Borroz completely misses Mr. Andreani’s assessment of the TMax. The TMax is not a city scooter by any sensible assessment, and Mr. Andreani doesn’t actually make that assertion. What he is actually talking about is the scooter-ization of a certain segment of the motorcycle market, which is a completely separate subject all together, and actually very interesting. Bad form, Wired.

This will easily be the best 17:28 of my day.