Looks like you are a new visitor to this site. Hello!
Welcome to Hope For Film! Come participate in the discussion, and I encourage you to enter your email address in the sidebar and subscribe. It's free! And easy! If you have any suggestions on how to improve this website or suggestions for topics please don't hesitate to write in to any of the blogs.
(If you keep getting this message, you probably have cookies turned off.)
I have a child. I am always looking for new films to explore with him. It’s hard to find truly age appropriate films. I have a pretty good handle on the classics, but we like to explore too (Check out our blog Bowl Of Noses).
We all have morning rituals. And most of us probably have a few we’d like to opt out of. My morning tear-up-the-credit-card-opportunity-into-little-bits-and-put-it-in-the-recycling ritual is one I would gladly abandon.
Scott Macauley at the Filmmaker Magazine blog tipped me to a stock market blog, SeekingAlpha, and the post “How Video Is Going To Take Over The World”. But the reality is that its not “going to”, it already has.
Last weekend I was walking home and saw that one of the stores in my neighborhood had been cloned and flattened. I greatly enjoyed the marketing prank and looked forward to the punch line the next day, not yet sure what they were selling. Sure enough, the butcher was back on Monday, it’s full dimensionality entact, albeit a little eyesore in the window completing the marketing. A lot of work for the few who saw it, but I appreciated my glimpse.
It never occurred to me that the judges that set our laws are so riddled with conflicts. Many of the Supreme Court judges continue to hold stock in companies that they either directly or indirectly must decide on. The Supreme Court is the most important job in the land, and I thought the judges took their jobs seriously. The New York Times had an editorial this Saturday that not only pointed the fallacy of this out, but also mentioned that most blatant abuser is Judge Steven Breyer who holds stock in more than three dozen companies. The editorial points out the many conflicts that have come for the judges who continue to hold stock, and how our nation’s legal system is stalled because of it. It definitely seems to me to be a good idea that if you want to be a Supreme Court judge you must agree to divest in your holdings, after all the country is a little bit more important than a little bit more profit. It also was a good idea two years ago when Congress changed the rules for the judges so they had no capital gains tax when they divested in order to avoid conflict. You can read the editorial here.Tweet