On its surface, the Paul Verhoeven film Total Recall is pure action, with tongue-in-cheek bits of futuristic pop culture making it little more than a nice conversation piece.
Taking a deeper look, and knowing that the film is loosely based on the Philip K. Dick short story, "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale", we know that this is a story of identity. This is something director Paul Verhoeven is known for, in other efforts such as Robocop and Basic Instinct.

In the film, Douglas Quaid has unsettling but strangely attractive dreams of being on the planet Mars. He is married with a regular type of job. But one day, he tempts fate and visits a facility called "Rekall", which sells memory implants. Their specialty is called the fantasy package, creating the illusion that you once were a secret agent. Of course, Mr. Quaid orders the Mars Secret Agent package, and the doctors who perform the implant procedure discover a "memory cap" - implying that he was someone different and someone planted him in a false life. With a cast of misfits to guide him, Quaid finds his way to Mars to finish the mission he once started.

As much as the film is about identity, Ronny Cox's brilliant portrayal of villain Vilos Cohagen implies it's also about control. If you can control someone's identity, you can make them do just about whatever you want. At some point, this plan foils, because nature, for lack of a better term, ultimately breaks free, as people become who they are meant to be in the end. You may be successful with the first one hundred or first one hundred million minds or identities you try to control using artificial force, but part of the lesson here appears to be that eventually, a strong mind will break free and become something greater.

In the end, it's left up to the viewer as to whether or not Quaid becomes that hero, as reality is a relative term in this universe. The ideas in the movie are very dense, the layers profound, but Hollywood unfortunately did not have the patience to explore those - it was too tempted to turn it into a smash-mouth Arnold flick.

Someone commented on Alex's recent post re: conservatism and poses the question: how do you support modern day Conservatism with lower-case-"c" conservatism - meaning, how does Corrupt support some elements of free market ideology while simultaneously advocating that people contribute to and help revive organic culture in their own towns? The two seemingly are at odds, but we like to look at history, learn from it, and propose solutions that would work for people who care about a sustainable future.

Since we have history to fall back on, we realize that, for example, in the European model, talented young folks would leave small towns and make their way into cities so they could indulge in culture, arts, science, etc. In the US, though we started out with cities (colonies) and spread into farmland instead of the other way around, our talented folks have the same tendencies - to migrate to cities where they have more resources with which to realize their full potential. So the commenter is asking, what's the solution to this - we need to keep a mobile labor force as America has to support some of the free market ideology, while simultaenously encouraging most people to stay in the towns in which they grew up - or at least find a place where their values are shared with most other members of the community. For example, if you love sodomy, maybe you can enjoy a community of people who are open about their love for sodomy, and so forth. For those who love math and science, there would be communities undoubtedly built with many labs and universities.

I think Michael Arth may have found a good start to a compromise between the two seemingly conflicting ideas. In his model, you're certainly not forced to stay in one place, but if more of our towns and cities looked like his pedestrian villages and you add the element of people living with others who share their values, people wouldn't need to always be on the go because everything they need would mostly be within walking distance. I understand this would require huge amounts of rebuilding within our existing infrastructure, but it's crumbling anyway, so why not rebuild it properly? A movement toward a better, more sustainable culture will be gradual, and what we propose in part are the first steps toward combining the best elements of our existing society and balancing them out with necessary, functional elements like the free market.

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, considered a "maverick" in the industry by many, keeps his executive salary at $1 per year (a la Steve Jobs), caps other executive's compensation, and despises labor unions for their abuses and market-altering negotiation tactics. He is also a self-described free market libertarian.

On his blog recently, he shared an unedited version of a Wall Street Journal article that captured his feelings on the health care reform buzz, which has stricken this country over the past couple of months.

I fully realize that there are many opinions on the healthcare debate, including inside my own company. As we, as a nation, continue to discuss this, I am hopeful that both sides can do so in a civil manner that will lead to positive change for all concerned. You are welcome to share your thoughts in the comments section below.

On his first point, he tries to make his own customers understand that he, too, is someone with his own opinions about important issues, and as a leader in the business community is asked to write for publications like the Wall Street Journal. While it's important to understand that business leaders need to reflect a fair attitude about things so as to keep up public appearances as a compassionate member of a community, Mackey did a good job trying to head off the mob by indicating he feels we have a long way to go before we simply push the button on "free health care", hence the heated debates. So why did this create such an uproar among his "fans"? Could it be he used that dirty word, socialism, and also pointed out the major flaw in all this - that despite rising income and sales taxes across the nation, our country is still broke and Medicare & Social Security Benefits - health care benefits, mind you - would be borrowed from in order to help fund this, the biggest irony of all?

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”-Margaret Thatcher.

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people’s money. These deficits are simply not sustainable and they are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and moves us much closer to a complete governmental takeover of our health care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the exact opposite direction-toward less governmental control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

All of what Mr. Mackey says is true: we're already knee-deep in an economic mess, and since money isn't free, someone has to fund this. Why rush this through, especially as public opinion is ever so slowly swaying toward a more reasonable solution? Also consider that we can't fund health care at the moment, even while President Obama risks his "man of the people" reputation by having to increase taxes.

The fact is, people like big symbols instead of reality, and so supporting "free health care" and a bill no one has even read outside of maybe a few people in Congress takes precedence over reasoned discussion on important topics. Some of the reader comments on Mackey's blog are laughable, where customers promise to never shop at Whole Foods again and even call for Mackey's dismissal by the Whole Foods Board of Directors. These comments are likely all from people who have never even read a Congressional proposal in their lives and have no idea what "free health care" means for the quality of their future medical care, the cost out of pocket to most of us, and how hospitals and procedures might change for better or worse as a result.

In attempting to strip away the layers of social reality and expose solid facts, Mr. Mackey only angered the liberal greenists who like their symbols big and loud. When anything gets in the way, especially reality, they look at the Whole Foods logo with hate and disgust, because they want those logos and the people behind them to do all the work, forgetting that they are a part of society who can help make a difference. "If I just shop at Whole Foods", the logic goes, "I'm doing my part to help make the world better - I'm shelling out my hard earned cash [conveniently, another symbol], so how could I be wrong by doing nothing but directing that money toward a Green business like Whole Foods?" Mackey showed them how, and they didn't like what they saw.

The Corrupt staff has collected some links geared toward making the future a better place.

• Interested in home made fast food? Salmon and tuna macaroni salads are both fast to do and rich in protein.
• City reconstructer and visionary Michael E. Arth runs for Governor in Florida 2010, stretching the boundaries of what it means to be a reformist in the Democratic party.
• Bryan Caplan tries to sell civilization to cavemen, but would those arguments work on today's intellectual leaders?
• Brett Stevens not only points out the problem with the modern politics game and overpopulation, but describes how to forge a new and better path.
• In a speech entitled "Facing the Future" Prince Charles reveals himself to be a visionary, and hopefully our next Philosopher King.

Human civilization works in cycles; that much should be obvious to any astute observer. Hopefully, this is an indication we're evolving back into a somewhat sensible species:

The four-year liberal arts college has given up tractors in favor of oxen to plow and hay. It’s installed solar collectors atop a barn roof to heat water for its two-cow dairy operation. Carbon dioxide emitted from the metabolisms of 80 chickens is shared with a next door greenhouse where CO2 levels can dip during the winter.

“Modern agriculture is heavily reliant on oil and other fossil energy sources – it’s extremely inefficient, with more than 20 calories required to produce and deliver one food calorie to a consumer’s plate,’’ said farm manager and ecology economist Kenneth Mulder. The college's effort is helped in large part from a $110,000 grant from the Jensen/Hinman Family Fund.

But if future farming is to be more local and sustainable, he believes students should be exploring organic growing in the context of traditional farming practices. It also gives students a more “intimate relationship” with the farm.

This is a good step forward from simply slapping an "organic" label on a fruit and selling it at Whole Foods. While this will inevitably be turned into a marketing ploy to get people to pay high prices for organic goods from this farm, the idea is nice: using a real life example to show people that we can still simplify society; that there is reward in doing things efficiently, building character the old-fashioned way. And this is in Vermont, where for at least two seasons per year, farming is nearly impossible.

If we are going to use electricity and power for anything on a regular basis, it should be for things like farming. So the point may be lost on people who care about power seats in their cars or, worse, power reclining sofas for their living room (sadly, I think these do exist, even for those not stricken with handicaps). While realizing that it would be difficult to give up modern day conveniences most don't even see, such as certain farm machinery, it's also important to understand that without huge growths in population, these machines never would have existed for the purpose of making farming ultra-efficient as farming is best suited to being localized instead of nationalized as it is today.

The iPod is a neat little device, but those familiar with the tech landscape in the late 90s know that Apple was a bit of a different company back then. Having just re-hired Steve Jobs in 1997 after he was fired from his own company in 1985, Apple began, as Jobs himself said, putting the "sex" back in the products:

A few minutes later, in walked Steve Jobs. The co-founder of the once proud company had been fired by Apple 12 years before. He had returned seven months earlier as a consultant, when Amelio acquired his NeXT Software Inc. And now Jobs was back in charge. Wearing shorts, sneakers, and a few days' growth of beard, he sat down in a swivel chair and spun slowly, says McCluney, now president of storage provider Emulex Corp. (ELX ). "O.K., tell me what's wrong with this place," Jobs said. After some mumbled replies, he jumped in: "It's the products! So what's wrong with the products?" Again, executives began offering some answers. Jobs cut them off. "The products SUCK!" he roared. "There's no sex in them anymore!"

Well, I guess we know what his motivation was all about upon returning. Who could resist making a phallic statement after a Board of Directors that fired him twelve years earlier got on its hands and knees to come and save the company? And save it from what - from becoming a niche brand? It always was, and never really was supposed to be a mainstream product.

We all know what happened in the fall of 1997: the first iMac. I was a first semester freshman in college when the iMac came out, and I remember kids "ooing" and "aahing" over these machines. My decision was simple: I was in business school, so what the hell would I want a Mac for if I needed to run Microsoft Office? Plus, I loved toying with the inside of these machines, upgrading memory and swapping out motherboards...something a Mac didn't offer in its glossy but sealed packaging.

Then, a couple of years later, the first iPod came out. You'd think die-hard Apple enthusiasts would have loved the idea of Apple getting involved in the new MP3 player market, but not quite. Here are some quotes from the hardcore Apple enthusiasts back in 2001 when the iPod was unveiled:

"iPoop... iCry. I was so hoping for something more."

...

"Great just what the world needs, another freaking MP3 player. Go Steve! Where's the Newton?!"

...

"Sounds very revolutionary to me. :(
hey - heres an idea Apple - rather than enter the world of gimmicks and toys, why dont you spend a little more time sorting out your pathetically expensive and crap server line up? or are you really aiming to become a glorified consumer gimmicks firm?"

...

"It's now at the online Apple Store! $400 for an Mp3 Player! I'd call it the Cube 2.0 as it wont sell, and be killed off in a short time...and it's not really functional. Uuhh Steve, can I have a PDA now?"

This just goes to show: the die-hard Apple enthusiasts don't care about hip commercials making fun of Windows, nor do they care about market share. They care about the products, and not the sex of the products, but the actual function (wow, who knew?). Jobs came back to Apple to make them sexy, and that worked for a while. But he sacrificed substance to the point where Apple's marketing the idea of switching to a Mac because of how easy it is to run Windows and Office on their machines, and this is clearly not the direction the company was headed twenty years ago when the Board of Directors fired Jobs so they could grow the company without his input in the name of profit and stock price.

So, for all you new Mac owners who paid $2,000 or more for a laptop that doesn't do half of what a Toshiba can do, and for less money, pat yourselves on the back: you've bought into Steve Jobs vision of a sexy product...doesn't it feel good?

One should note there are vast differences between bourbon – typically noted on the bottle as Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey – and American whiskey (typically from Tennessee). Bourbon can best be described as stronger and smoky in comparison to Tennessee whiskey – stronger due to the different type of "mash" – rye and corn – and more smoky because of the fact that it always must be aged in new, smoked casks for it to be considered Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey. For more about American whiskeys, check out Chuck Cowdery's blog.

Bulleit makes a fine product. While not the most refined of bourbons, as single barrel and other special edition products can be had at only a few dollars more, it's just refined enough so that it goes down easily, and you can enjoy the smoky finish without it being overbearing. That extra kick of rye, more than in most bourbon, is appreciated more with each tasting. The aftertaste is fairly bold and smoky. Even though Bulleit does have a slightly chalky taste to it on first sip, the overall flavor and aftertaste are good enough to justify it as an everyday bourbon. Plus, it even has a cool name: Bulleit.

Personally, I prefer my bourbon with ice and my single malt scotch whisky straight, but in the case of Bulleit, either way you drink it, you should be happy. It's strong enough such that a little ice won't do much damage to that smoky glow, but not too chalky or biting that you'll find it difficult to put down a straight dram or two.

[Bulleit Bourbon is a Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey. No aging statement; distilled at Four Roses Distillery in Lawrenceburg, KY]

[…] the Brooks School, a North Andover boarding school for grades 9-12, is counting on […] an animated animal that lets students “see” their energy consumption in real time. Instead of showing students what energy they are collectively using in each of the school’s ten dorms with graphs or digital numbers, a “bear-o-meter” displays it more visually on a public screen with the bear’s well-being tied to how well students are conserving.
For example, when energy use is low, such as early in the morning, the bear is asleep and happy. But as energy use rises as students turn on computers, televisions and music devices, the ice can begin melting under the bear’s paws – and if energy use really peaks – the poor bear falls in and flails in the open water.

Something of note: these kids are in high school, not elementary school.

The question should be, "does turning out a light make a polar bar happy?" The answer, of course, is "no".

There are too many people on the planet, and for some reason, mainstream environmentalism is ignoring this, so we're not teaching our young people about this issue. Industrialized nations don't need any more people, but they allow them in anyway while falsely believing they're doing the world a favor. So you have more resource consumption in first-world lifestyles which only adds a positive feedback effect back home in the developing world.

More people escape to industrailized nations while less people realize that overpopulation is becoming a huge concern. Of course, that doesn't stop them from reproducing--they've just gained entrance to a high material lifestyle. In the meantime, our population continues to grow thanks to shortsightedness on both ends - developed & developing - and we end up with lip service paid to polar bears in a cheap attempt to turn environmentalism into a commercial product. Hey, didn't they do that in the new Disney flick, Earth?

Transit police saw a spike in the number of groping reports on the T over the last year, a rise that coincided with a surge in arrests for indecent assault and battery.

Since the start of the campaign, the number of groping complaints nearly increased 74 percent over the last year, from 48 to 65, according to the MBTA. Over that same period, police arrested and charged 24 people with indecent assault and battery, an increase of 85 percent from the 13 arrests made the preceding year.

Aw, come on Boston – you're taking the "fun" out of "fondling"!

It's good to know that asking for citizens to report more crimes via advertising results in filthy gropers being arrested. I don't know why this doesn't work with rape or murder; have they tried it yet? Getting people together inside a metal cylinder headed for a metropolis to work all day through frustration now has the added benefit of becoming a bona fide police officer on the way home to relieve stress. Stop touching my butt, pervert, or I'll have you arrested! Take your three square inches of personal space elsewhere, I don't care how bumpy this train is!

If everyone can be a police officer (without the gun – minor details), then pretty soon there will be no criminals left – I'm sleeping better at night already.

The United States and Russia, striving to ease strained relations, announced jointly Wednesday that they'll try to put a new nuclear arms reduction deal in place before the existing treaty expires in December.

In advance of their first sit down, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a joint statement saying the "era when our countries viewed each other as enemies is long over." They pledged to work together to limit the world's two largest nuclear arsenals, and the White House also announced that Obama was accepting Medvedev's invitation to visit Moscow this summer.

An interesting bit of news about which we can all rejoice. The US & Russia, the two world superpowers, are finally striving to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenal.

No mention of China, which is worrisome. Maybe the US & Russia have a buyer for their nuclear weapons to even the playing field out among the now-three world superpowers? This would at least give China a fair shot in a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario.

Now that I think of it - nice try, Boston.com, but this is definitely cut and pasted from an article 22 years ago or so. It must be; the Cold War ended on 12/25/89, didn't it?

Marx was wrong: The opiate of the masses isn't religion, but spectator sports. What else explains the astounding fact that millions of seemingly intelligent human beings feel that the athletic exertions of total strangers are somehow consequential for themselves? The real question we should be asking during the madness surrounding this month's collegiate basketball championship season is not who will win, but why anyone cares.

The ancient Romans used the Coliseum to promote spectator sports, the crowd culture of which is depicted quite well in the 2000 film, Gladiator.

We're no better off today as a crowd than we were thousands of years ago, when people lined up to get into a stadium for a fee, had bread & beer thrown at them by the emperor's henchmen, and became passionate about a game. The only difference between now and then is that people had more balls in ancient Rome. They took to the ring to fight tigers (not willingly, but let's ignore that), vs. not even being allowed to touch your fellow man on the basketball court for risk of being called for a foul.

Today, athletes are even more coddled than the crowd, so we have something new to complain about when we spend $100 for a good view of the basketball court to view a millionaire shooting a ball into a hoop: "Try harder! You make so much money!"

We can apply this to concerts, as well: aren’t we paying $100 to see U2? We have every right to criticize!

Sadly, people forget the truth: you have the right to remove yourself from the idiocy and save your money for something meaningful. Do you really care if U2 has a good concert or not; do you care if Stephon Marbury had a good game? The money only fuels the ensuing circus and gives the recipients of your money what they crave: attention, and the desire of the crowd for more.

Major League Baseball and other pro sports were worried that the 10-year limit would put a dent in some of their players' careers, especially those who spend several seasons in the minor leagues. While the sports couldn't point to any athletes who have been kept out because of the policy, they expressed fears that could happen any time.

The new policy memo states that P-1 athletes "are not subject to a lifetime admission of 10 years in the United States."

"It is difficult to imagine our sports leagues today without such names as Dirk Nowitzki, Dikembe Mutombo, Johan Santana, Alex Ovechkin and Vladimir Guerrero, all of whom are foreign citizens," Sanchez wrote in a "Dear Colleague" letter to lawmakers last session.
There were other options for players who had reached the cap, such as applying for a green card or trying for a different type of visa. For example, the AP learned that NBA star Nowitzki, a Dallas Mavericks forward now in his 11th season, switched to an O-1 visa last year. The O-1 visa is reserved for athletes and others of "extraordinary ability," and the German-born Nowitzki is one the league's top players. But it's not an option for the average professional athlete.

I was thrilled at this news. Dirk Nowitzki is the great white hope of basketball; tough to imagine life without him. At the same time, is it fair he gets an O-1 visa for being an athlete of extraordinary ability? Where does one draw the line? I say: let as many athletes as possible stay here.

Athletes contribute to the GDP by bringing a valuable entertainment product to the masses. This helps everyone out – they're doing a job no one wants to do, for sure (how many of you want to sweat for 3 hours a day to make a living?) – and allows us an easier and more entertaining lifestyle.

And while we're being entertained, those additional athletes bring the average weight down. Everyone wins: America's stats get better, both on the court and off!

Washington, DC (Corrupt, Inc.) - President Barack Obama (aliases including Hozannah, Christ and Jesus), in His infinite wisdom, has defied the very laws of physics and arithmetic set forth over the past several billion years. In His holy proposal, arousing the praise of his followers, He intends to halve the federal deficit to $533 billion by the end of his first term. This is a milestone event – direct evidence of a higher power, and changing all of what we thought we knew about the universe in the bargain.

President/Messiah continued: “It’s an amazing step, but a necessary one to protect freedom and democracy – Me-given rights to all under My law. Spending used to mean we owed money to someone – the taxpayers, other governments, or the Federal Reserve when they did us the favor of printing the tool known as money. But under My new system, and under My direction, spending will in fact reduce liabilities, not increase them.

“Our last President, the fallen angel heretofore known as Satan, put us in this hole by not having the stones to change the very laws of physics, and I’m determined to spend My way out of that mess. Since that can’t be done under our existing regime of scientific laws, I’ll simply change them.”

With a wave of His hand, President/Messiah Obama will wipe the slate clean and spend His way out of this recession and coming depression. Money will have value only to Him for the millisecond in which this planned action is to take place. [Disclaimer: “wave of hand” pending Senate and House approval.]

Other future changes for the newly elected Messiah include spontaneous creation of vehicles with no required power plant or energy consumption, electric outlets growing on all newly planted trees, and an ending of all race, gender, and IQ dissimilarities.

Stop the hatred on fat people:

Obesity is a major public health and economic concern. In the United States, a third of women age 15 years and older were obese (body mass index [BMI] greater than 30) in 2004. There are significant health implications of prepregnancy maternal obesity for both mother and child. There is evidence that suggests that maternal obesity may be associated with the development of some congenital anomalies (abnormality present at birth). Congenital anomalies are a leading cause of stillbirth and infant death, accounting for 1 in 5 infant deaths in the United States, and are important contributors to preterm birth and childhood illnesses, according to background information in the article.

Everyone has a right to reproduce if their loins are fertile enough, no matter how fat they are. In fact, when a baby is born, a woman loses weight, so isn’t more children of obese mothers a good thing for our society?

This is more media spin in favor of women who are told to gain only twenty to forty pounds during pregnancy. How is that possible when a woman has insane hormones and appetites after morning sickness wears off? Are they really supposed to avoid ice cream sundaes every few hours?

What we should be doing is encouraging as many obese women to have babies as possible. If they can get pregnant, there’s proof right there that genetics favors fat people; otherwise they would all be infertile.