Ben Ravencroft from Scooby-Doo and the Witch's Ghost totally looks like Dr. Ayers

Scooby-Doo and the Witch's Ghost was my second favorite Scooby-Doo movie when I was little (my favorite being Scooby Doo on Zombie Island). The basic story is that Scooby-Doo and the gang travel to cute a New England town called Oakhaven after being invited by Velma's favorite horror writer: Ben Ravencroft. They find that the town has been turned into a tourist attraction by the mayor and exploits the towns history of witch trials to sell merchandise. Ravencroft's ancestor, Sarah Ravencroft, was an accused witch and the townspeople claim that Oakhaven is haunted by her ghost. Ben Ravencroft wants the gang to find her diary to prove that she was not a witch, just a spiritual healer. After a bunch of wacky antics, chase scenes, and grotesque amounts of food eaten the gang finally comes across the diary. Little do they know, it is actually a spell book and she really was a witch. Also Ben Ravencroft knew all along, but apparently required the help of a ragtag team of mystery solvers to find a book that had been in the town the entire time. Seriously, that kind of was unneccessary. Ravencroft is supposed to be an intelligent novelist who has spend quite some time on the history of the town, but he can't seem to find one book accidentally stumbled upon by a dog. Anyway, Ravencroft apparently recieves magical powers when in posession of the book and starts to laugh manically while shooting beams of magic at Scooby and making objects come to life. In the end the gang is able to save the day and all is well.

Oh, and Ben Ravencroft is basically Dr. Ayers.

this one too

and leon trotsky

"Can't you just take a boat?"

People are stupid. To be more specific, Americans tend to be pretty stupid. To be even more specific, Americans are very stupid in the category of geography. I was talking to an ADULT who is a friend of my family. We were making very brief small talk, and she asked me about what I was going to do this summer. I told her I might go to Alaska for the first time because I have some extended family out there, and Alaska is a really cool place. 

"Ohh wow that sounds cool how are you going to get there?" she said, obviously with fake enthusiasm.

"Well, I'll probably end up driving there. Through Canada. It'll be kind of a hassle getting a passport and the trip itself will be boring. I'll have to drive for like... six days through the woods."

"You know what you should do?" she literally flipped her hair and popped her gum. This woman is a walking stereotype. "You should take a boat from California to Alaska."

"Well, I've never thought of that. I guess that could be cool, like a cruise ship for a couple days and then go to Alaska."

"No no no, it wouldn't take a couple days. You could just take a ferry or something and get there in a couple hours." 

I was really confused. At this point I just had no idea what she meant.

"I think taking a boat from California isn't that much faster than driving through Canada..."

"Well haven't you seen on maps how Alaska and California are like... right next to each other? I've always wondered... Hawaii and California are hot, but Alaska is south of  them and its cold there? How does that work? Is is something like global warming or global cooling?"

At this point I just stared at her.

For a while. This woman is in her mid thirties, and has a license to sell real-estate, but for some reason thinks that the states of Alaska, California and Hawaii are right next to each other. Then I remembered how she might think this. 

On maps of the United States, Alaska and Hawaii are put where Mexico is because they are both very far away and can't be shown in relation to the rest of the map without a lot of awkward extra space. Everyone knows this. Or so I thought. But this woman seriously thought that I could go to California and take a boat across that small space by Alaska on the map. Seriously, this is why other countries laugh at us. Because lots of people are terrible at geography.

The Grey

I say this every time but hey look its the trailer for The Grey

This movie was awesome. Usually when I come to write a review I'm disappointed. The Grey was really great though! Its about an Alaskan oil drilling team who's helicopter crashes in the middle of the frozen wilderness. The main character, played by Liam Neeson was hired to protect the facility from wolves and takes charge while everyone else freaks out. They soon discover a pack of wolves is circling them. I never really thought about it before, but wolves are really scary. This situation terrifies me. Watching this movie, you're always on the edge of your seat, wondering if a wolf will lunge out of nowhere and rip into one of the main characters. There are so many things that make The Grey a great movie, but the tension is what I  remember. I literally couldn't relax the whole movie. Few movies can duplicate the sheer amount of tension and suspense this survival movie offers.

Spoiler alert: everyone dies a bloody, brutal, wolf-related death. In most survival films, characters are killed off and there is a major lack of emotional impact. This is not the case in The Grey, however, as I found myself caring about the characters more and more as the movie went on. The characters arent the usual stereotypes that everyone hopes will get killed off soon enough. On top of it all, Liam Neeson is such a badass.

Phone Charging Stations

Have you ever been out in public and you realize (often too late) that your phone is about to die? Usually when this happens to me, its only when I really need it the most. This is becoming a more common problem for lots of people. Cell phones are becoming more advanced: bigger, more detailed screens and more data capabilities like WiFi and 3G use along with gaming and other "apps". While this is progress, battery technology is far behind. Batteries are not as capable as phones demand. To use my smartphone all day (I have a HTC Hero 2) I need to charge it at least twice. Lots of people have this problem and usually have to resort to using their phone only when necessary. There's a new technology breakthrough that soon fix this problem when you're on the go.

It's called an ACM (automated charging machine). The thing about it that I found hilarious is the guy next to it.
In this CNN article he is referred to as an entrepreneur, but really all he did was get the rights to selling it in America from a Chinese company that had already done all of the real work in inventing. I was skeptical when I first opened it up "there's no was that douche-y looking guy actually invented something."
He got the idea when his phone died on his way to the airport and noticed that he had his roommate's only house key in his pocket. If he didn't call her to arrange a return, she would be locked out all weekend. Without his phone, he didn't know her number. He wound up driving back to his house to leave the key under the mat and missed his flight. On his return, he drove past a number of ATMs and convenience stores. That's when the idea struck him: You get cash anywhere. Why can't you charge your phone anywhere? He later on went to contact that Chinese company that had previously invented it and gained exclusive rights to sell the system to many locations in the U.S. Stupid people with a little motivation get rich sometimes.

I've seen this technology before at an airport, but it seemed to be kind of flawed. The ACM back then didn't charge your phone any faster than a regular charger, so at most maybe you would get 30 minutes of charge (which doesn't really equal much to some phones). Also, the system was set up that you would leave your phone, unattended, in a locked box next to a bunch of other unattended phones in a semi-metal case. No guard, just a key. In an international airport. I saw this charging station when my phone had died, but I opted out because I wanted to protect my belongings. The modern ACM charges at a quicker speed, but this does some harm to to battery when it is suddenly flooded with too much energy. Again, battery technology is falling behind.

My weird experience in Lava.

So last week, a new restaurant in Cedar Rapids opened up: Lava. It claims to be a latin-asian fusion restaurant. It's owned by the same people as Cibo, who happen to be my neighbors. I know exactly what every room in the restaurant looks like, but I've never eaten there.

Last Sunday, I thought maybe I could get an application there to be a host because they advertised that they were hiring. I drove over and pulled into the parking lot. No one was there, which I found to be a bit peculiar, because it was around 10:30 on a Sunday morning, just enough before lunchtime that some staff should be around. I awkwardly walked up to the door, assuming I would pull the handle, it would be locked, and then I could just turn around and go home without anyone seeing me. The door opened, though. I slowly stepped in and saw that it was dark aside from the light let in from all of the windows. Asking for applications is always awkward, I dreaded doing this. In my head I wanted to just turn around and go home, but my feet kept walking. I was relieved to see that no one was at the front counter and not within sight. I stood a few feet from the counter for about thirty seconds, but no one came to the front. Maybe I just wasn't heard walking in, so they were all in the back. Its a new restaurant: there's lots of work to be done. I let out a cliche impatient cough hoping that would cue someone to come and greet me. Silence. You could hear the cars driving by outside in the distance. It was time to step out of my comfort zone: "....Hello?" Still nothing. I tried again, but louder. "HELLO?" Not a soul heard me. I realized I was alone in an unlocked restaurant.
When I was younger, I often found myself wandering off and exploring. My favorite thing to explore were schools because of the unlimited corridors and staircases that could be. I've never really had a fear of getting lost or being by myself. I would just dart off with the goal of mapping out the school. I wouldn't say that I was weird, just adventurous.
So naturally, my first instinct was to walk around the restaurant. I walked alongside the bar and the small adjacent booths. It kind of looked like a rip-off of old jazz clubs. Lava is the kind of place my mom and her friends would probably hang out. The rest of the restaurant was just tables and was explored from one glance. I walked into the empty kitchen. The restaurant had only been open one night before so it was in very clean shape. The kitchen looked exactly like you would expect it: stainless steel everywhere and lots and lots of cooktops. I noticed that there wasn't a shortage of knives, which made me instantly paranoid that there would be a serial killer lurking in the building with me. I quickly ditched, but on the way out saw I cup full of pens and took one. I needed a memento of this weird event.

The Woman in Black

You've probably seen the trailer for this sometime over the past couple weeks. Its the trailer for Daniel Radcliffe's new movie, The Woman in Black.

It looks really good from the trailer. You get lots of eerie images, like a carriage driving past a grave and at the very end, a ghostly face appearing right behind Daniel Radcliffe. The Woman in Black has lots of your basic elements of horror: a scary old house, creepy children, old warped photographs, the fear of being alone in the dark and black, shadowy figures. It sounds like a recipe for a perfect horror movie. The Woman in Black is actually based off of a 1986 version of the same movie. I watched the old version, and even though the acting wasn't great and the effects were on a budget, it gave me a better impression. There was more plot involved in the 1986 version. Radcliffe's character is supposed to be a very innocent young man who is slowly driven insane in the house and we as the audience get to watch his drop into insanity. There are more aspects to the background of exactly who the woman in black is explained in the original that would have made this version better. Because of my previous knowledge of the story, I thought this movie abruptly ended. Often, movie makers think that just showing a scary face is enough to scare the audience, but there's an art form to it. There needs to be an element of mystery, because most fear comes from not knowing. The remake tried to do this, but it ended up being a movie where you get to watch Daniel Radcliffe walk around for about five minutes following the sound of a noise until FINALLY something happens. It kind of bothered me that such a popular actor didn't really need to act in this movie. I like it when you can tell the actor has been challenged by a role and that's when their talent comes out. Daniel Radcliffe has the potential to be a great actor, but only if he eventually takes roles that take him farther than walking around, looking frustrated or scared (basically all of the last 3 Harry Potter Movies.)

The premise and plot could've made made this movie a ten, but throughout the movie there were dull spots. It was a bit of a roller coaster ride of quality. The only thing about the ending I will say is that it came too soon, there could've easily been more story line added. The Woman in Black wasn't very long, there was definitely room for more horror. Overall, this movie will make you scared, but when its all said and done you will feel dissapointed.

Do I want a kindle?

For Christmas, my step mom Kathy got a kindle fire from my Dad. She was really excited to have it replace her original kindle, which has a display screen only in black & white. My first question was why was the kindle (and other reading devices like the nook) so outdated looking in a time where it definitely could have been. The technology existed in 2007 to make it have a color screen, internet capibility, and games. When my mom asked me if I wanted a kindle for christmas, I said no because I knew a more advanced version would come out soon. Its all really an intelligent marketing ploy. The android designers knew they could milk more money out of the kindle name, so they purposely left out features. People fell for it. Sales for the first kindle were huge, and it seemed like nobody asked why it was so technologically behind.
There are four generations to the kindle:

The first generation is this blocky monster. It was incapable of holding illustrated books or cover artwork.
It did not have any internet capability but had 250 MB of memory. At a price of $399, the first generation of the amazon kindle sold out in around five hours in the United States.

My Dad has this, the second generation kindle. I've done a lot of reading on it so I don't really think I should criticize it. Its fun to read on because you can click on certain words you don't know and it will give you a dictionary definition. It helped me get about half-way through Madame Bovary my freshman year, but I just got WAAAAY too bored and had to stop. Seriously, I honestly despise that book. At the same time I would read on this, I had an iPod with wifi capability and games, so it made me question why the kindle didn't come with more.

This is the third generation of the kindle. It has a larger screen, less awkward keyboard, and you can get it in graphite. That's really all. And it made amazon a lot of money without them really changing much.

The kindle fire came out in the fall of 2011 and revolutionized the e-reader series. It is very similar to the iPad,   and has all the same capabilities of it. The negative aspect of having such a bright screen is that reading time is reduced because it shortens the battery life. I think reading on the kindle is fun, it makes me think I'm just reading an article on the internet, which many in my generation are accustomed to and often feel awkward with books. It makes me feel guilty though, because as e-readers become more popular, bookstores have been greatly effected. A notable example of this is Borders, a book chain that had been open with many locations across the united states for over 40 years.