(no subject)

I went back to the movies last night. :)

I decided to see Green Lantern and as long as I could get discount tickets through work I thought I would give Cars 2 another try.

Green Lantern was a pretty good movie.
I think it was a typical comic book movie that is first for the character. It was more introduction than really good storyline. That said, it wasn't too bad of a story, just a little thin.
My biggest problem with the movie was the CGIing of his costume. It was just too distracting for me. You see his natural neck and head, and the rest is just CGI'd over his body. All the other superheros have had "real" costumes and for the most part most have looked okay. Ryan Reynolds has a terrific body, what would have been wrong with a simple latex suit hugging his muscles? If they had to, they could have CGI'd the "pulsing" energy over his costume. I don't remember his costume "pulsing" in the comic books. At least not back when I read them.
They of course set up a sequel during the credits, so hopefully it will make enough money to make it worth making the sequel.

I guess I would give it a grade of B+.

Cars 2 the repeat visit was okay.
I swear either I can't go see movies that late or there was something wrong with that theater.
I was perfectly fine watching Green Lantern, but when I walked across the hall and sat down in the other theater to see Cars 2 I was instantly sleepy. lol... I did catch myself nodding off again. At least this time I am pretty sure it was during scenes that I was awake for last time. So I am pretty sure I have seen the whole movie now. :p
Despite the sleepies, I did enjoy the movie, in fact I think I enjoyed it a little more.

I think I will bump the grade up a little to a solid B.

(no subject)

It's only a problem if they are not getting their share...

And to answer the final question of the article, NO that is not how I want my tax dollars spent.


Bachmann Against Medicaid Except When Her Husband Benefits
by Robin M.


Minnesota Congresswoman and Republican presidential candidate has long complained that government handouts have gotten overly excessive, and that Medicaid is a program that needs to be cut. So how is she responding to reports that her own husband has received over $160,000 in Medicaid payments at his health care clinic?

Via MSNBC:

[S]tate records show that Bachmann & Associates has been collecting payments under the Minnesota’s Medicaid program every year for the past six years. Karen Smigielski, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Human Services, said the state’s Medicaid program is funded “about 50-50″ with federal and state monies. The funds to Bachmann & Associates are for the treatment of low-income mentally ill patients and are based on a “fee for service” basis, meaning the clinic was reimbursed by Medicaid for the services it provided.

When asked about these payments from the government, Bachmann previously claimed they were for training sessions for employees and that the clinic actually benefit from the money. Even if that were the case, isn’t all money “indirectly” assisting the clinic by allowing it to free up other moneys to be spent on other costs? After all, that has been Bachmann’s own excuse for explaining why Planned Parenthood shouldn’t receive any taxpayer funding even though the money can’t be used for abortions.

As for what services are being provided by the clinic being run by Marcus Bachmann, the center focuses on “Christian counseling” for mental health problems and addictions. Marcus Bachmann has faced controversy for allegations that he counsels homosexuals to be “straight,” a claim he denies. Yet he has been known for his public remarks saying gays must be changed. “We have to understand that barbarians need to be educated, need to be disciplined. And just because someone thinks [they're gay] or feels it doesn’t mean we need to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature.”

Is that how you want your taxpayer dollars being spent?