Where I start ranting about politics...

Last post before SoCal, most likely! Races in a week. Sweet! Unfortunately, this will be one VERY long politically based post...First part will be about Monterey Downs. The second part will be about the Affordable Care Act (ACA or "Obamacare").  

Who'd of thought my horse racing knowledge would actually come in handy for voting? I certainly never did. I thought, at most, it'd open up interesting conversations with people, but for voting? Nope. Never.

I briefly touched on it in my last post, but Monterey has a ballot measure in November's election for rejecting Monterey Downs. Monterey Downs would be an almost 550 acre project right on the border of CSU-Monterey Bay and the Fort Ord National Monument (aka BLM lands). If you check out the link, it's a really intensive project that would take years and years to be completed. It's basically creating a mini-town in the middle of Fort Ord. Rumor has it (I haven't thoroughly checked this out) that the developer for Monterey Downs is actually from Malibu, which says a little about the project. It'll have housing, shopping (a movie theater?), a throwback "downtown," tennis courts and an Olympic size pool, huge indoor arena (apparently future site of CSUMB graduations), horse park (complete with Grand Prix arena), training horse track, hotels, offices, and some land that'll be utilized as a "gateway" to the BLM lands (i.e., leave your dog, horse, or bike there while you go off and enjoy "downtown" or a trail head). The tag for Monterey Downs is "Balancing nature with everyday living." Catchy, eh?

The campaign materials are clever...So clever, in fact, I actually got the measures backwards when discussing them with a co-worker. When reading them on a ballot, I get it, but discussing them I got them backwards! Measure K supporters (pro-Monterey Downs) is using the "K" to highlight phrases like "keeping promises." Good hook phrase and with the "k" and Measure K, you get that subtle hook in to vote FOR Measure K because of keeping promises. However, the proponents to Measure K who want you to vote for Measure M (against Monterey Downs) is solely highlighting the racetrack (Monterey Downs calls it a "training facility" in its literature) and gambling. They don't mention absolutely anything else about Monterey Downs. Well, they do mention destroying thousands of coast live oaks, but that's always a sub-point after the horse track. The racetrack is a good hook too since most people are adverse to gambling and horse racing (I always think of the "noise" when I see the literature against it). Little do most citizens know that getting Thoroughbred racing at Monterey Downs is not a guarantee. So, propaganda material is pretty good on both sides and since K is voting FOR Monterey Downs and M is voting AGAINST Monterey Downs, the ballot is kind of confusing on top of it all (which, according to Measure M supporters, was Monterey Downs point to put Measure K on the ballot -- to confuse the voters).

At any rate, I at first thought Monterey Downs was JUST the racetrack since that was all that was highlighted, but when I started to look into it, it's a HUGE project that's far more reaching than just the track. I think they plan like 1,000 new homes/apartments too. It's about 550 acres, which isn't monsterly huge, but it's not small either. It's always been in the works that Fort Ord would, eventually, create a state-of-the-art equestrian center. It's been in the works forever in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. I did NOT see the racetrack (it's a racetrack, people, not a "training facility") or the housing or pool or anything else in there! Because I'm a horse racing fan and like my horses, I HAD to look it all up in detail.

The Monterey Horse Park really isn't that big of a deal (check the link for a detailed plan). It's pretty straight forward and, as I said, is not really a surprise to anyone who has remotely paid any attention to Fort Ord's future when it was decomissioned. It will be a nice facility -- if it ever gets made -- and having a Grand Prix (GP) level arena will be really cool! Pebble Beach actually holds some GP level dressage events, but their arena is absolutely horrible. I was reading one year that some of the better horses were withdrawn because the arena was so terrible. I'm sorry; I'm not sure which is sadder: The fact that a GP level event can be held at a terrible arena OR the fact Pebble Beach would ALLOW a GP level event to held on a terrible arena. Sure, fixing it wouldn't be cheap, but making a good arena would make it so the good competitors wouldn't withdraw or skip the event. Having good competitors compete would only help with notoriety and, in the future, more money! At any rate, the Peninsula is due for an upgrade of some sort. Plus, with the history of Fort Ord and all the BLM lands, it just makes sense it needs a better horse facility. Goodness knows Marina Equestrian Center could also use an upgrade. So, anyway, horse park...whatever. I do wish they'd put some seating around the GP arena...Come on. If you're going to have GP arena, you need seating!

The "training facility," though, is really interesting. It is mentioned that it could be used for future horse racing, but mostly mentions training. I guess since it's so small, it really wouldn't need a lot of stables, but it's not a dinky race track! It's going to a mile long oval, which is the same size as Santa Anita (if you do not include the grass downhill shoot). Technically, I think they're going to emulate Golden Gate Fields (GGF), which is a mile oval too. It has infield shoots to make the grass races longer, which is what the track looks like it'll have too. Del Mar has a similar looking track. Del Mar is wider than it is longer, whereas GGF is longer than it is wider (so the distance to the finish line is longer at GGF than Del Mar). The grandstand, supposedly, will only seat around 1,500 (from what I could find), which is pretty small. The arena they want to create near the track will seat almost 4xs more than that. I don't know what Del Mar or GGF seats, but I know Del Mar seats more than that by a lot and I've never been to GGF so I'm not sure. In comparison to Santa Anita, Santa Anita's grandstand is more than 10xs bigger than that. Obviously, it's a precaution in case they never DO get live racing so they don't have a huge grandstand for no reason. I'm sure if live racing was approved, they could redo the grandstand and make it bigger (Churchill redid their grandstands in the last decade to add in new "sky boxes") with any added revenue from the gambling. So, that's the track comparisons. It's not a dinky "training track."

Here's some random thoughts the general public don't know about horse racing. Horse racing at various tracks is approved yearly by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB). They meet yearly and divvy up the racing dates amongst all the tracks/regions. They also approve tracks, date changes, training facilities, and so forth. It's quite the bureaucratic process. Thoroughbred (TB) racing, harness racing, quarter horse racing, and fairs all get different race dates. TB racing, though, is typically GGF is open almost all year (seriously, it runs in thirds through the year with 1 or 2 months closure between the meets) and SoCal tracks (Hollywood, Del Mar, and Santa Anita) get split up (order: Santa Anita, Hollywood, Del Mar, Santa Anita, Hollywood). With the closing of Hollywood Park at the end of this year, the future years will be Santa Anita, Del Mar, Fairplex, Santa Anita, Del Mar. (As a random note, Santa Anita closes out the year and opens the year so they run Dec 26-well into the new year.) So, in actuality, the opening of Monterey Downs would have no impact upon the SoCal circuit. The only thing it would do is make a potential new track to run horses at. With that said, GGF would lose some of their days to allow racing at Monterey. I think the plan is the late summer to early fall and would have 45-days of live racing ("live racing" is always used to say when there are actual races there because most tracks stay open for simulcasting). Those 45 days would have to come from GGF. Not to say GGF has really any say in it, other than petitioning, but it'd be kind of weird to open a new TB track and take some of its days away.

In addition, horse racing is not at a great moment in its popularity. I can't see how suddenly adding a new horse track is going to help things in the industry. In addition, two major tracks in California in the last 5-ish years were sold off and have been (or will be) bulldozed for housing (good bye Hollywood this year and Bay Meadows has been closed for a while). Gambling isn't even the "focus" of Monterey Downs (says interviews). Monterey Downs' thing is to promote some "fun" for the students. Really? Okay. Maybe. I find it fun! Horse racing is a new experience and cheap (I suspect a LOT of $1 beer days...it's practically a track tradition) and gambling, let's face it, will be a draw. Though, it is mostly done on-line these days (I stood next to a lady at last year's BC where she was on her iPad placing her bets at the rail). Besides, if you were going to be a horse racing fan and wanted to gamble, the Monterey County Fairgrounds is an OTB (off track betting) site and even has all the stuff you'd want (simulcasting, DRF, etc, other than a live race). I guess it will be a new temptation for people to start gambling since it'll be "there" for them. On the flip side, I enjoy it just fine and I haven't dropped a dime on a bet (or a penny, since you CAN bet a penny). It might be nice to corrupt (hehehe) youngin's to racing (sans gambling) and they do plan to add internships and stuff so you never know who might fall in love with racing, but still...I just don't see how this will really do anything for the industry or CA racing. I guess, locally, it might do something (if I'm around and you can't find me, check the track), but the big picture just makes me go, "What...?" I guess it is also a new area to take in new gambling profits, but if gambling made a track...New York's Racing Association (NYRA) wouldn't be in a constant state of struggle (though, the new thing is slot machines) nor would Hollywood have closed. GGF is near Berkeley and Hollywood was in Inglewood (close to UCLA, 20 minute drive south). Sure, it's not in the backyard of a college campus, but you can't say CSUMB is a "big" campus either (yet). It's random and with the location the track is in, it's likely to never be a BIG track location. So, in actuality, the track could end up being nothing and, instead, you have a nice big oval for car shows (I'm channeling Del Mar in that reference, even though we've got Laguna Seca nearby)!

So, basically, I don't get the necessity or interest in the "training facility." Honestly, I'd keep Monterey Downs for just the Horse Park and skip the "training facility." I don't see the need in the project at all and, seriously, who thinks of creating horse racing as "something for college students to do"?! That's just weird! And this coming from a horse racing fan...who would love to live at Santa Anita. LoL So, anyway, Horse Park, yes; training facility, no. Though, I admit that I am curious to see a race track be put in...

With that said, it concerns me that with everyone on the Peninsula so in tuned with the water crisis that is the Peninsula that VERY little mention is EVER said about where all the water for the 1,000+ homes, hotels, offices, etc is going to come from. Houses take a lot of water! Hotels do too! I'd be willing to say the horse track, horse park, and offices will take less water and can be "justified" (to a point -- that infield of the race track and the turf course is going to be water intensive, so...again...track, no). In fact, I might vote down Monterey Downs purely because of the water issues. If it was just the track and horse park, I might actually have been for the plan. The businesses might not even bother me that much, but the houses really concern me. What's the point of them? To draw some immediate business? I don't know. There are places that have so much trouble getting water and suddenly this HUGE project is going to get those water rights? How weird and...political...I'm not against growth and, frankly, I agree with the whole "saving 550 acres more is moot when 20,000 plus is already saved" is a valid point, but it needs to be "smart" growth and I don't see this as smart...and it's also so random...Horse track?! Houses?! Whose idea was this? LoL Frankly, I'm likely to vote no on Monterey Downs; however, I want to read Measure M first because I still want the horse park and the veteran's cemetery. If Measure M basically makes either of those impossible in the future, I'm against that more. I do believe in the somewhat promises that were made by FORA. To say the least, the results of this election will be VERY interesting towards the future of Fort Ord.

 

Random cute bunny photo to break-up the dense topics. I have no clue what Lodie is looking for! Those are the grids of their former pen so I'm not sure if she smells them so she's looking for her old home or what, but she's only done this once and she kept looking and looking...There were more grids behind those. No empty space or anything. Weird bunny!

Now, the Affordable Care Act (ACA)...I've given this rant about my situation a few times and thought I'd blog about it. Especially since we just finished our government closure over it and, apparently, some Democrats are now thinking of waiving the fee or pushing back requirements a few weeks or months due to the sign-up issues.

I am one of those people who does not have healthcare. I haven't had healthcare for about 2.5 years now. If I've needed healthcare, I've just paid out of pocket, which, up to this point, has been cheaper than me paying for healthcare monthly. Then again, I'm also avoiding some things I probably should have gone in for also (haven't had a physical in going on 3 years, my heart palpitations (though, those have mostly gone away)). My place of employment DOES offer healthcare, but I can't afford it. With the ACA open now, underneath their stipulations, I do, in fact, qualify for the tax subsidies! So, yay! Right? No. I, unfortunately, fall into the "no man's zone" of the law.

As of right now, I qualify because my company's healthcare costs just a little more than 9.5% of my salary. Underneath ACA, that is not deemed "affordable" and I qualify for the tax subsidies. Unfortunately, with my next raise, I fall just below that 9.5%. According to the ACA, this means that I now have "affordable" healthcare by my place of employment and I no longer qualify for the tax subsidies. This basically means that ACA is pointless for me and I might as well go get healthcare from my place of employment. Unfortunately, if I could AFFORD healthcare in the first place, I would have done it years ago.

On top of all this, my next raise would be next Aug or Sept (can't remember) and the month makes a difference. ACA gives you 3 months of not having health insurance and not get fined. If my raise is in Sept, I'll be okay because I'll be kicked off ACA with my raise, but can wait till Dec to do open enrollment at my company for health insurance. The health insurance would kick in Jan 1st. So, there are my 3 months and not being fined (if you count Sept as not counting); however, if my raise in August, I'll be delinquent. So, yes, I have to figure that out. I, luckily, don't have to worry YET because I'm waiting to hear if my company's insurance will go up or not. If it goes up, I should be okay after my next raise. If not, I'll need to start thinking about the differences in plans of the ACA and whether my company's is really the better plan and just pay the extra amount. Decisions, decisions, and lots of homework...

The problem with the ACA is it doesn't take into count those who are right in that non-poverty area, but don't make enough for their bills/living area. I have a student loan I'm paying back and rent in a costly area of living. I save a little, but if I have to pay health insurance at my place of business, there goes my saving and it takes even more than that away so my standard of living is going to change for the worse. And, before anyone mentions it, I make too much to qualify for MediCal (even with the raising of the maximum to qualify) and I don't fall underneath any of the other stipulations to remove yourself from the program (one being not needing to file taxes -- I guess it's hard to charge people a fee that will be charged when you do your taxes if someone doesn't have to file taxes). Then again, just making $2/hr more would make a HUGE difference.

So, in all, I spent a good deal of time looking through the ACA, looking at the webpage, going to California's webpage, and reading the mandatory handout from my company. I got all this information so it's possible to learn it, but I have people constantly asking me questions about it because I've done my homework. Some of the population is not going to be able to figure this out. It's complicated and takes looking through pages and getting lost on trails of information. A computer is required for the work I did. What happens to those who English isn't a first language? I guess, in many cases, it's pretty straight forward (don't get offered insurance, you qualify), but if you've got a job that does offer insurance, you need to figure out the 9.5% and everything else. I would not be surprised if the fee is waived for 2014 and if it's not waived again in 2015 or at least reduced. If they waive the fee in 2014, I can guarantee people are going to go back to the "Oh, well, I don't care anymore" and stop signing up. This means that in 2015, people are going to be scrambling again and things are going to break again. Or, maybe I'm being super pessimistic about this and maybe the extra year will help work out the kinks and it'll give people a year to trickle in their sign-ups. Who knows. Though, it would be nice if the government can decide quickly. There are many people and perhaps many good things about the ACA, but I am definitely one of those few people who is completely annoyed by the ACA. Sure, it's great if you qualify, but it's the complete pits if you're in my situation.

Lots of randomness, but Gravity in 3D is a must

Well, there is just a little less than 2 weeks till I head south to see family, friends, and races! It'll be fun and a well deserved break from work. I need the break. I've had 4-days off here-and-there the past year, but I haven't had a VACATION in almost a year! I do still need to figure out jewelry and nails for my outfit...I might just wait till I'm south to figure out jewelry, but I do need to figure out my nails since I'll either need to bring my stuff south or do them before I go down. I also need to buy heal gel inserts for my shoes. I could put my orthotics in, but I'm afraid they'll super stretch the shoe so I'm going to buy cheap heal inserts to help my heal spurs for the day.

In other news, I'm officially finished with my Aquarium contract. I've been paid and everything. It feels kind of nice not having it on my mind. I've been able to read more lately, which has been nice.

I recently got into a few authors on Facebook. I've read their books for a while, but recently thought to check for them on FB. One of the authors suggested a new author and the new author is doing a review blitz where if you review her book on Amazon, she'll send you swag. I'm such a sucker for swag. LoL So I've spent the last week solidly reading her series to get to the book that needs to be reviewed to count. Luckily, she's only got 3 books out! I'll finish the 3rd book and the one that needs to be reviewed by Friday, which means I'll have read 3 books in 8 days. First one took the least and the 2nd the longest. Now, do I pick the autographed book or the cool reusable bag?! I'm thinking bag because I can get a signed book another time and the bags are a "while supplies last" thing.

I do still have my class, but it's pretty easy. I am learning a great deal from class. I've got all sorts of forms and stuff to help with grant writing. I'd like to volunteer with some organization and get some hands on experience in grant writing with someone who's done it before. Be good job training and good experience in general. Haven't really looked into any organizations around here, yet, but I think I'll look after I complete the class. Seriously, though, you have to be ORGANIZED for grant writing. Wow. I do find sometimes the class is a little hard to get into because I don't have an organization to "practice" with for writing out letters of inquiry and letters of request. Also, the more you know of your own organization, I think the easier it'd be to do the grant writing. Finding the appropriate funders and getting the proper materials in at the right time and making contact will be the hardest things once all the program/organization materials are mostly completed. I can imagine it'd take a month to get that all ready before contacting any funders, though. Crazy stuff, but I'm enjoying the learning.

In the political scene, this November's election for Monterey County will have interesting impacts on the former Fort Ord. Do we reject Monterey Downs or accept it? I need to read the working of Measures K and M VERY carefully since one rejects it and the other accepts it (or something like that, it's kind of confusing). I'm sort of torn about it the more I read about it because I absolutely think the Peninsula could benefit from a state-of-the-art equestrian facility, which the Downs would create (think Olympic host standard), but I don't like the rest of it. They'd add in hotels, housing, a sports complex, a RACETRACK (a horse-like one), and some sort of "throwback town". Not to mention a dog barn is even going in so your dog can rest after a long hike while you go eat or watch a movie (what?!). I adore my horses and, honestly, it'd be kind of cool if TB racing came to the Peninsula (though, that'd be absolutely ridiculous given the current racing economy), but this is far too big of a development. It'd butt right up against CSUMB (in its backyard, practically) and FORHA and BLM lands. I know one argument is there is already a great deal of land already preserved and we can't preserve it all, but...why is it so big?! CSUMB would benefit from the center a lot too (it's mentioned "indoor graduations" and the future CSUMB equestrian team). In some ways, they make Monterey Downs sound like it'd be the new Fairgrounds, but in a town-like atmosphere since a movie theater would also go in the Downs. I'd like to see a smaller plan, personally. There is an awful lot of housing in the plan. Sure, if you're making a world class equestrian center, you'll need hotels and offices, but what's with the housing? I don't know. It'll be interesting. There's a lot of heat on the issue. I think it'd be interesting, but I don't really like how BIG it is and will probably vote no on it. If it does pass, it's going to be a LONG time before it's finished. We'll see! Must read more into it all...I've only just started and everyone at work is confused about it. LoL

Movies...Not a whole lot right now, but I'm liking a lot in theater, but I'm adverse to watching dramas in theater because of the expense. We'll see. Long reviews for 2/3 movies because there's a lot to be said. :)

Much Ado About Nothing (Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof) - Whedon had always wanted to do Much Ado About Nothing and he ended up filming it at his house in California. The cast was fun to see because a lot of them had worked with him previously so it was fun picking them out. I thought it was good, but it was kind of weird seeing it in a modern setting and Shakespearean language. Other than abridging it, he's pretty faithful to the play. I liked the acting and the movie (it's in black and white), but it's not something I would normally watch. I mostly watched it because it's Whedon and I liked the cast ensemble. Not bad, but not terrific either. Grade: B

After Earth (Will Smith, Jaden Smith) - Not having read much about the film prior, I was informed right before I watched it that the movie was based in Scientology. Not really knowing so much about Scientology I sort of pushed the information aside in my head and watched the film. After watching it, I really researched Scientology and I can see why people say that; however, it's a sci-fi film and Scientology was created by a sci-fi author. This means that the movie's themes are not, specifically, Scientology brainwashing. I could probably name a few other films where the same themes play out. I will say that if you DO know Scientology and the Smiths one might NOT be able to ignore the themes, but I had no problems. The main themes are about getting past our fears and moving on from our traumatic pasts, which can be found in several movies. On the other hand, in Scientology, that is called "auditing." I will say it's much more prevalent than in most movies about not being fearful, but it's nothing new either. So, to me, it didn't affect my watching the movie at all. With that said, this was a disappointment of a film. There was no way I was seeing it in theater since it's a Shyamalan film and he totally burned me on Last Airbender (I will NEVER forgive him for that!), but I wanted to see it because of the Smiths. So, my main conclusion: Not a terrible Shyamalan film; a terrible Smiths film. I didn't enjoy the acting from Jaden and I know he isn't a terrible actor given I liked him in Pursuit to Happyness and he didn't do too bad in Karate Kid. Will is up for debate. His character is REALLY stiff and hard to get an emotional attachment to so I'm a little ambivalent about him, which you can either say is good acting or not. The story was also highly predictable and very linear. There wasn't any real exploration or "new" aspects to the story at all, which made it kind of boring. At least the time kind of went by quickly...? Grade: C (maybe C-)

Gravity (Sandra Bullock, George Clooney) - By far the ONE movie EVERYONE has to see in 3D in theaters. Avatar was great in 3D in theaters because the movie was made for it and had great special effects so the 3D was useful and beneficial, which, to me, up till this point made it the best 3D feature film. Unfortunately, Gravity takes that spot for me. This movie HAS to be seen in 3D to get the full effect of being in space. Most films you watch in 3D and it's just a depth perception thing, but Cuaron utilized it so it made you feel like you were in space. It's hard to describe, but the special effects were absolutely amazing and it was terrific when things in space would float out further to you than the actor to give you that great zero gravity feeling. I guess the difference with Avatar is you can enjoy the film in 2D and the 3D just made it more fun, but the 3D in Gravity puts you into space and watching it in 2D will loose an entire aspect of the movie like losing one of our senses. Outside of the 3D, the special effects were really good. If it doesn't win best special effects at the Oscars, I'd be really surprised. I think my favorite effect, which wasn't really a special effect, but cinematography was when the camera was outside Bullock's helmet and then zooms in and then you figure out you're inside her helmet and then it zooms back out. It was really subtle and good. The acting was also really good. I enjoyed Bullock and Clooney. There were a few moments I wanted to strangle Bullock, but it wasn't like I wouldn't probably be doing the same thing she'd be doing. With the acting and special effects excellent, I had issues with the story. Actually, I had major issues with the story. First off, the movie is only 1.5 hours long and I felt EVERY minute of it. It's intense. There is one point where things relax and I actually got bored. I was sitting there trying to figure out how much was left in the movie because I was so bored. Then everything that could possibly go wrong goes wrong. There were people sitting behind me commenting at certain points and normally that would bother me, but I agreed with them on everything! If you watch it, you'll understand what I mean -- especially the very, very end. The end practically became laughable because of the rest of the movie. At any rate, I think it's worth the theater cost to see in 3D and I think the acting and special effects carry the entire movie. The movie wins absolutely nothing in writing, in my opinion, but it could win all sorts of awards for directing, cinematography, special effects, and acting. Would I see it again? Probably not, but one of my favorite films of the year. Grade: A

Trips are so exciting!

...And so expensive.

Tickets, clothing, travel expense, etc, etc. Not to mention the urge to buy a new digital camera so I can have AMAZING photos of the races. I almost got a new digital camera a few years ago (a DSLR camera), but opted against it. My digital camera did okay last year. It wasn't bad, but I didn't always get "crisp" photos because I zoomed so much. Sometimes it's just needed, especially on the back stretch when you want the entire field and you're standing on the rail. Oh man, I can't wait for that. It was FANTASTIC watching the races on the back stretch. You can actually hear the horses running by and see them without a sea of people in front of you...So excited. At any rate, no new camera. I just can't splurge THAT much, but I am going to bring BOTH digital camera batteries. I took so many photos and video that I could barely even photo the final race because my battery died and then I used my phone for some photos, which almost killed my phone battery. So...This year...Both camera batteries AND I know that Santa Anita has horrible cell reception so I won't even bother with my phone and won't need it for a camera. I'm excited! I do need to figure out my shoes...I bought a pair of shoes (relatively cheap at $10) because the PERFECT pair of shoes I found (they match my hat!) weren't available in any of the stores. I came home, looked them up, and found a pair available on-line, but shipping and cost, they come to about $22. Do I really need the perfect pair of shoes for my hat or should I stay with my "workable" shoes, which work with everything, but aren't "perfect"? I've got about a week to decide if the extra money is worth it or not. The tickets arrived, though, and I got my cardigan for my dress and plane ticket. So...It's coming together! It's going to be good. :)

In the mean time, I'm taking a non-credit certificate program for grant writing at Oregon State University. OSU offers the class through the university, but there's an organization that actually sets up the class. I had a really difficult time paying for the class because of my lack of reading and being tired (tip: don't pay for things when you're really, really tired...), but I FINALLY got the class paid for and I'm taking it (honestly, for a digital class, my payment difficulties seemed absolutely ridiculous). It's been interesting. I never realized how much work really goes into grant writing. Wow! To be really prepared, it's nuts! Then again, a lot of the work is just getting your end of things in order (statements, etc), but knowing what materials the potential funder needs/wants will definitely take time. Also, finding funders will take time and shouldn't be kept to just internet searching. At any rate, just 3 weeks into the class, but it's interesting. The only thing that determines if you get the certificate is your final so I'm not always doing all the assignments, but I am making sure I do the quizzes (only 5 questions) and doing all the reading. I am reading my fellow classmates discussion stuff too.

Work's been an interesting roller coaster this week...Can't really say much about it, but it's been interesting...In the end, things are pretty much the same. It was a long week and a week I seemed to be tired everyday. Oh well. Continuing my job search, tyvm...

With that, movies! I actually watched a movie I rather liked this week.

The Great Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire) - It's been a long time since I've read Gatsby, so it's hard for me to compare it to what the book is. It does make me want to break out my AP English notes when I read the book my junior year in high school. I will say, I'm a little disappointed in it. Baz Luhrmann (Australia, Moulin Rouge, Romeo & Juliet, Strictly Ballroom) is known for being opulent and over the top and the trailer showed this opulence. It's definitely opulent and over the top, but it gets bogged down in the sad moments and mostly just ends up being rather depressing and misses the interest of the book. I may not remember the book, but I don't remember hating it or finding it boring (we read it in 9 days -- a chapter a day). It sort of drags in certain scenes too. I at first thought Maguire was a good Nick and Mulligan a good Daisy, but I'm not so sure now. DiCaprio was a decent Gatsby. I liked him a little less the more I watched. He isn't bad and, in ways, sort of saves the movie, but I guess I felt like it was too "expected" of DiCaprio? Joel Edgerton who plays Tom was good, though. I wish Baz had just gone all the way, I suppose, with his vision of the film. The music in the beginning was kind of weird too. I like the Florence + the Machine song (of course) and I do enjoy the "party" song, but some of the rest just didn't work as well. At any rate, I'm glad I saw it, but I don't think I'd readily recommend it. Grade: C

Redemption (Jason Statham, Agata Buzek) - Predictable and kind of funny since he ends up falling with a nun, but the movie doesn't have a happily-ever-after ending and the middle of it is the only non-depressing part of the movie. The rest of it is rather dower. Wasn't a bad Statham film, though. I've seen worse. I did sort of like the redemption part of it, but the end kind of threw it out of the window too. Grade: C

Fill the Void (Hadas Yaron, Yiftach Klein) - I'm still a little confused by the movie. I liked it, but the falling-or-each other part was a little mystifying to me. I'm not in doubt at the end that they truly love each other, but I am a little mystified how it happened. I know part of it is the family connection, but it was a little odd in that sense. With that said, I liked the movie. There's something about it that works. It's gentle, not pushy, artsy, and, yet, is a movie that everyone can understand even though it's set within a very orthodox Hasidic Jewish community. Family obligations and wanting to be loved are not things that religion or nationality discriminate against. Arranged marriages are going out the door, but this didn't feel the same like you normally see. Glad I watched it, but not sure how often I would recommend it. It's one of those foreign films not many people will watch. Grade: B-

The Kings of Summer (Nick Robinson, Gabriel Basso, Moises Arias) - I adored this. I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. It has a somewhat flavor as Moonrise Kingdom (the running away from your weird family and living off the land) or even Stand By Me, but this was about growing up, finding who you are, independence, friendship, family, and summer. I really liked it. The part I did NOT enjoy -- I have to mention this for my animal rights friends -- is the killing, skinning, and eating of a rabbit. I did not enjoy that scene and it IS the only incident and it's a relatively important scene, but it bothered me. It is frivolous and silly and could have been better, but I still liked it. Grade: B

Imposter (Documentary) - I'm not sure why I wanted to watch this, but watch it I did. It leaves an interesting opening at the end about the family. I thought it was a good documentary that showed everything that happened, all the speculations, and the final outcome. It was played out to be a bit of a mystery with the family and how they were so convinced that their son had returned. It's just not my normal thing to watch and I was a little bored through it... Grade: C+

This is the End (Seth Rogan, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill) - What in the world?! I knew it was going to be absolutely ridiculous and far beyond ridiculous with some laughs thrown in and maybe some other bad humor jokes; it met all those expectations, but I still at the end went, "What in the world?!" I think the best thing about the movie is how how the actors play their named selves, but they're playing different versions of themselves. Because they're playing different versions of themselves, there are a lot of jokes that revolve around their previous acting gigs. Like they poke fun at Emma Watson playing Hermione and James Franco in 127 Hours or the ones in Pineapple Express. There are a lot of cameos by various actors/singers, which was kind of fun to see. Knowing what these actors had played in does help you a little in getting some of the jokes. With that said, this movie was absolutely ridiculous and almost sacrilege! Though, the end with the Backstreet Boys in Heaven was rather hilarious. I did enjoy that, but the rest of it is not my thing. Grade: C- (for the laughs)

Dredd (Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby) - My housemate watched it and liked it (he's a comic book fan). It came out on DVD earlier this year and I contemplated renting it, but ended up not. My co-worker recently watched it and absolutely enjoyed it so I decided to watch it because it's streaming everywhere now (Netflix and Amazon Prime). I liked it! I think it's just about the perfect length (1.5 hours) and I think Urban did a good Dredd. I also liked the evolution of Thirlby's Judge Anderson. It is rather violent and bloody, but it's not more than like Wanted. I thought it was better than it's been given credit for and I wouldn't mind seeing a Dredd 2, but I don't know if that'll happen since it didn't do very well in theaters. It's not quite a movie I would want to own, but it is available on streaming and I think, at some point, I would watch it again. Grade: C+/B-

Just 18 more movies to 100!