Celsias posted a shocking film, Patent for a Pig: The Big Business of Genetics (43 mins) with some grim truths about Monsanto that are beyond frightening. I find it hard enough to comprehend sometimes that we place a monetary value on something nature alone created, e.g. selling your cat’s litter or some plants that appeared in your backyard. (Breeding/raising is a bit different as there is work input into the result, but it’s still animals creating animals.) I’ll let the film tell the details, with this intro from the Celsias post:
It’s amazing what humankind can do with a little effort and ingenuity. Who’d a thought we could create an intelligent, four legged creature with a curly tail, that actually walks and makes cute grunting noises?
Stand by to be horrified at the lengths Big Biotech will go to take over the world’s food supplies. You’ll also be shocked to learn that pig and cattle farmers are seeing their livestock go sterile due to giving them genetically modified feed.
“Introducing Monsanto, the inventors of the pig…”
Thanks to my mother for the heads up on this item.
i rarely do anything on a friday night, but last night we went out on a date to the Afghan Horsemen Restaurant on Broadway & Cambie, to celebrate our 1 year, then he suggested we see The Da Vinci Code. i didn’t expect that my art history courses would be so useful, or would lend me such an appreciation. most of what i’ve learned about religion i learned in those courses. the introduction with Robert Langdon’s lecture was quite enlightening.
as a non-believer i found the film unoffensive. i found it intriguing from a humanities, historical, and cultural point of view. it was a beautifully well-done film, well scripted and intelligent. i definitely want to see it again.
another blogger posted forwarded, anonymous emails he received along with his commentary on them. the newest one is very heated and, i think, ignorant. the blogger, Ronald Allan, has very realistic, intelligent, and moderate views on the posted email.
i see it as quite possible that these events occurred. consider the power of the patriarchy. the papacy. the church. the rulers of religion have been male, so why would they want their power disrupted by the presence of a powerful female? as a non-christian, a non-anything, what i don’t get is why it’s such a horrible thought that Jesus (who i do believe existed) might have married and had a child. love itself is divine, having a child is divine. there is no love like the love for a mate and the love for one’s child. i find it fascinating that there could be any descendents of Jesus alive today. were he a mere mortal (which i guess is how i look at it), he still did amazing things for his people. isn’t that what counts?
“For as long as there has been a God, there has been killing in his name.” (hopefully i got that completely right.) isn’t that the great tragedy of our time? i used to have a more negative view on religion but i’d like to view it as something that saves people, that enriches their lives, that makes them believe in something when they need to, that makes them feel like they’re not alone when they can’t see a single being around them. it shouldn’t be something that kills people.
i believe in science, in evolution, in the facts, evidence, and theories. this film and book is essentially a theory, but i believe, given even human nature, that it is a very valid one. it is certainly something to think about.
i like romantic comedies. they’re funny and romantic. but wait… i was born in the 80s, so i didn’t exactly grow up on hepburn, gable, and tracy (who?). i’ve seen a few old films, quality films where the love is really real and the characters are believable.
Alison Gillmour, a Winnipeg-based writer, wrote an article called “Where Is the Love?” posted to cbc.ca on June 7. I’m looking at the black and white image at the top realising that nothing so genuine exists anymore, and that romance in film today is mostly cheese. as for television, i’m not sure… i think from the little i’ve seen of King of Queens that the sensation is revived.
Gillmour notes that in the 30s and 40s the target audience of couples courted young then married, whereas today, people date for decades before settling down. (and believe me, my boyfriend will NOT see a romantic comedy unless i consent to watching a horror flick in return for his suffering.) i can think of a few movies where people are looking for love, desperately, in their 30s (and older? were they older in the classic films?) and have even given up.
i can think of one film of recent years where the male-female (or female-female, male-male) protagonists’ character interaction was not interfered with by celebrity, where the courting was enigmatic and beautiful, where the ending was heart-warming in a very deliberate and genuine way… no sap, just pure emotion and intelligence. if you know me at all and even read my earlier post about another film… it’s Amélie. but then again, this film was, overall, more intelligent, mature, and delightful than anything yawnlywood can conjure up. celebrities in real life rarely seem to demonstrate real, long-lasting love. it’s not what makes the juice for paparazzi and magazines, and it’s obviously not what makes the backbone of romantic comedies. what does romantic mean anymore, anyway? wherever its meaning is, it’s not in hollywood.
independent films never get enough credit. the box office and hollywood and the media are so obsessed with stupid, disgusting american teenager/adult comedy, meaningless teen movies, meaningless repetitive action flicks and unintelligent dramas that they make room for few gems. lucky number s7evin was brilliant and i expect the da vinci code to be as well. but what about the little movies you rarely hear about? i waited for this one to come to theatres, then completely missed it somehow (if it even, in fact, played at all), and then waited for it to come out on DVD. everything is illuminated was more than just a film, it was an experience. (based on the book, by the way.) it was funny, romantic, endearing, tragic, witty, bizarre, and beautiful. elijah wood plays jonathan, a collector. i finally realised my attachment to things when i finally leave them (moving out, etc.): alex, as jonathan bags a cricket: “why do you do this?” jonathan: “sometimes i’m afraid i’ll forget.”
after you’ve watched the trailer (linked above), if you like the song at the end, find it. it’s called How It Ends and is by DeVotchKa.
