Ramdom thoughts on the Atlas movie...

Usually, I'm not too particular about when I see movies that I want to see. Often, as long as I see it on the big screen, whenever will be fine. The movie "Atlas Shrugged, Part 1" is different--knowing how much stock Hollywood puts into opening weekend returns, I want to see the movie this weekend; I'd have seen it opening night if the mall weren't a madhouse on the weekends. Ever since I heard about it, it's been at the top of my list for upcoming movies.

What I'm trying to figure out is why I want to see the movie so badly when I've already read and reread the book. For movies where I haven't read the book, the movie is a quick and easy way to experience the story. However, my enthusiasm in this case seems more difficult to explain.

I suppose it's possible that it's a quick way to experience the book again. As with the books where the movie is the quick way to see what's it about for a first time, it could also be a quick way to experience it again.

Somewhat going against that idea, though, it occurs to me that seeing the movie is a way to see the book as others envision it and get new perspective on it.

A third idea is that the simple idea that a good novel would represent a solid start on the way to making a good movie. This one may apply a bit less to the "Atlas Shrugged" movie than most cases--the movie was made by an entrepreneur who has never produced a movie before, the director has little experience, and I've never heard of most of the stars, and the budget is small by Hollywood standards. So, while I like the actress who's playing Dagny, I have some apprehensions about how the movie will come out.

I think the main reason I'm looking forward to the movie so much, however, is that it's a way to celebrate the book. It's a way of going out and saying, "this is a great book--pay attention!" One reason why I tend to lean most heavily on this theory is that I've been trying to urge Donald to see the movie--alas, it seems, to no avail. I also tend to think this is the case because I really want to see it opening weekend so it'll have good returns in the way the movie industry seems to care about, and have them despite the limited release.

Regardless, though, I'm glad to finally see that Atlas Shrugged will make it to the big screen.

Snowy and death

Snowy passed away today. It wasn't unexpected--the vet said back in January that he probably had less than six months less to live. Last weekend, he stopped eating, and was clearly had trouble walking. When I took him to the vet today, she said what I had feared--his death was imminent, and euthanasia was the most human choice.

I believe in an afterlife, and I believe that animals--at least animals as evolved as cats--go there. One of my main reasons is a story where Snowy was the center. Since I've been recounting it today, I thought I'd offer it here, also.

In 2002, Mrs. Heinlein went into the nursing home. Snowy came out to live with us. He was aloof. This didn't surprise me, he had always been aloof, at least to me. My main contact with him before he came to live with us was things like hurricane evacuations and computer repairs--which I'm sure he regarded as disruptions in his life.

In any case, on the night Mrs. Heinlein passed away, I was up late on my computer. (BTW--as an aside, the cat pictured with Mrs. Heinlein in the above link is Snowy.) At about 4:30 that night/morning, Snowy started yowling. Peabrain yowls randomly--but that was always uncharacteristic for Snowy. For a couple of minutes, he was yelling his head off mournfully. Then he settled down. Sometime around 5:30 or 6 that morning, the nursing home called--Mrs. Heinlein passed away in her sleep. The following evening, Snowy jumped up on my lap. He had barely approached me before then. After then, he was a habitual lap cat.

Somehow, Snowy knew Mrs. Heinlein passed away--and before we did, probably exactly when she passed away. The only explanation that makes sense is that he sensed her soul leaving her body.

My belief in the afterlife presents me with a philosophic quandary. I prefer reason to faith, and I don't like to believe in things I don't understand and/or can't prove. While the episode with Snowy is a compelling anecdote in my mind, I didn't have the presence of mind to even haul out a tape recorder when Snowy was acting up--I have no evidence to prove it happened. (Not that a tape recording of a cat meowing would prove anything metaphysical.) I also have to admit, I also want to believe something of our minds live on after death, beyond what's shown in our works and our progeny--and that desire could color my judgment. At the same time, I don't have a hypothesis of HOW the soul could separate from the body and live on. Nor do I have a great deal of confidence in any particular traditional description of the afterlife. But I don't have a better explanation for what could have set him off. A "psychic bond" is just as tenuous as an "immortal soul"--that explanation also has scant proof and involves the mind reaching beyond the body; in the sense that both involve the cat sensing her soul, it's essentially the same explanation. Could he have heard something, or could something have set off that magnetic sense cats are supposed to have? Atlantic Beach is more than 30 miles away, with the city of Jacksonville in between--I'd think that would drown out any sensory information.

In any event, today was Snowy's turn to find out the real story about the afterlife. Believing that something of him lives on out there somehow, doesn't make his death any easier. Rest in peace, Snow Cat.

Chef's plans are hard to stomach.

According to a recent Reuters story, chef Gordon Ramsay is advocating fining restaurants that serve out-of-season produce. I don't know anything else significant about Ramsay's business plan or political views (I've seen ads for "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares" which is/was hosted by him--that's all); so this could be a sarcastic comment, or a proposal suggesting a law where he doesn't really want the law, but does want to push people into eating only in-season fruits and vegetables. However, the report from Reuters seemed to indicate this was a serious proposal, I'm taking it as such, and on that basis, using it as a perfect example of someone wanting to misuse the law for personal benefit.

Ramsay is perfectly entitled to not want imported, out-of-season produce for any reason he may want. I'm sure he has his reasons to choose not to eat such fruits and vegetables: he may feel the energy used to import those products is wasteful and bad for the environment; he may feel that foreign agricultural workers are mistreated; he may feel it undermines traditional culture in some way. He is free to refrain from eating, buying, or serving that food he finds offensive for those reasons. No one should stop him from advocating the same course to others, either.

What is distressing about his desire to impose new laws and fines is that it goes beyond those choices. Everything I mentioned in the previous paragraph is something he is within his rights to do, but others are within their rights to do differently. Ramsay is trying to take away the choice. His reasons may be aesthetic--i.e., he simply finds it distasteful that people are eating foods in ways he doesn't like. Or they could be economic--i.e., his restaurants are losing business to other establishments because he won't serve foods that others will and that the public wants. Or they could be a combination of those reasons, or others I'm not thinking of. However, whichever of those motivations is behind his position is irrelevant. Others should be as free to make their culinary choices as Ramsay is to make his, but if the law he is advocating ever went into effect, the British public would have Ramsay's choices imposed upon them.

The bottom line is this: freedom requires tolerance. Other people will certainly do things that we think are stupid, wasteful, annoying, distasteful, or otherwise wrong. However, if those poor choices don't hurt us or others, then the proper course is to try and dissuade people from making such poor choices, but accept it and move on if they do anyway. Just because you or I don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Bubbles in the oil?

While I was watching the news tonight, I caught a comment that intrigued me. George Soros testified before the Senate last Tuesday that part of the run-up in oil prices was due to a speculative bubble.

I had always accepted what seemed to be the conventional wisdom about the high prices: that strong demand (economic growth in China, India, etc., Americans' refusal to drive more fuel efficient vehicles), and tight and uncertain supplies (instability/tension/war in Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria, Iran, Columbia, etc.; price manipulation by places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, etc.; our own government's ridiculous refusal to drill in ANWR and offshore despite the presence of known oil reserves) lead to high prices just due to the laws of supply and demand. Since oil is relatively inelastic--people can't stop going to work, heating their homes in winter, buying food grown using diesel-powered machinery and petrochemical-based fertilizer and pesticides, etc.--the price was destined to rise until something gave; i.e., supply increased because the price was too high to resist entering the market, and/or demand dropped because the gas or whatever was simply unaffordable.

However, if part of the equation is pure speculation, then it suggests three things: first, it means that prices could go much higher than they otherwise might--in part because it's not rational forces controlling the market, but rather simple greed. Second, it suggests that at least prices won't stabilize anywhere higher than they are now--if part of the price now is due to speculation, and the speculators give up, then prices should drop. Third, it means it's going to be a lot harder to predict where prices are going, since it'll be hard to tell when when the bubble will burst.

I'm not sure Soros is right about this, but I'm not sure he's wrong, either. We'll see what happens in the future. It is something to think about, either way.

Random thoughts on the Green Line crashes

Last Wednesday, there was a crash on the el in Chicago, and also a crash on Boston's trolley system. Curiously, both crashes were on their respective cities' Green Line route.

1. I didn't catch any mix-ups where reporters made claims about one city's crash when they meant the other (such as referring to a trolley in Chicago). This is not to say it didn't happen, but I didn't catch it.

2. If you're looking for a real-life example of a true coincidence, this seems to be it: there is no common cause between the two accidents. (Also note: nothing happened on Washington, D.C.'s Green Line.) It is certainly odd that both accidents were on the "Green Line." (I should note that both cities use letter codes to indicate the final destination of the train; I suspect those codes were different, but I'm not 100% sure of that, either way; so, in some sense, it might not have been the same line.)

3. I'd worry if two crashes in one day will discourage mass transit use; in this day of rising gas prices, that would only make things worse.

Of course the Republicans are ignoring libertarians...

Recently, I've seen two columns regarding the brush-off the libertarian wing of the Republican Party has been getting. Steven Greenhut, a columnist I enjoy and respect (despite what I see as a misplaced affinity for the Republican Party), lamented how a many of the speakers at a convention he attended seemed enamored more with power than with liberty. Then, on Monday the 29th, Shellie Sullivan called it "baffling" that prominent conservatives are ignoring Ron Paul.

I have long held that the Republican and Democratic Parties have no meaningful difference--that both parties are dedicated to the expansion of their own power before all other goals or ends.

With that assumption, it's hardly surprising that most Republicans are embracing some very authoritarian positions despite their need for libertarians to help vote them into office. It's even less surprising, despite his strong poll and fundraising results (including, interestingly, the most donations from military personal and veterans, despite as staunch an anti-war record as you could hope for), that Ron Paul--a principled libertarian--is being as marginalized and ignored to the extent the Republicans can get away with it. Libertarians and their ideals don't support the expansion of power; for a party dedicated to the expansion of its power, that is an unforgivable sin.

Debunking nothing...

You knew I couldn't leave well-enough alone if I encountered an article entitled "Debunking Ayn Rand's Objectivism." I posted this comment ("Bemused," BTW, was a commenter who wrote, "Gosh, the Rand-ites do come out of the wood work when anyone critcizes [sic] Mother Ayn." and then complained about another comment's length.):

Regarding Bemused’s point:

I wouldn’t say I’m coming out of the woodwork. I set up a search in Google News for “Objectivism” to try and confirm something a Randroid said in an article about Objectivism receiving positive mentions in the news every day. (Closer to every week, if that, would be my impression. I’d tend to chalk that up as a symptom of what’s wrong with the world, but we’re straying from the point.) That’s how I found this article.

A title like “Debunking Ayn Rand’s Objectivism” was bound to pique my curiosity—I’ve picked up some Objectivist memes over the years. I wondered whether someone had found solid reasons to attack Rand’s philosophy, or whether this was a flawed argument I could pick apart for intellectual exercise.

I didn’t bother to read Prof. Gimbel’s blog based on the summary provided here. The only two quotes by him provided were “If you take the writings of Nietzsche and remove everything insightful, interesting, and funny, ... what’s left are the writings of Ayn Rand.” and “narcotic to the upper-middle-class white male of above-average means and intelligence.” I know the former to be untrue from reading Rand; Rand wasn’t funny (she didn’t try to be), but she was VERY interesting and often insightful. The latter seemed mainly designed to equate Rand with religion in the minds of Marxists by echoing the famous “opiate of the people” quote, and strongly implied that the Objectivism was irrational and a system of evasion. (I would think philosophic ideas that appeal to people of “above-average … intelligence” would merit closer scrutiny, not dismissal. Maybe that’s just my bias from being a member of Mensa and it’s sloppy of me to try and argue from authority on that ground.) Neither quote substantially attacked Objectivism; both were more ad hominem attacks—against Rand in the former and the “average objectivist” in the latter. I took Mr. Goldstein’s selection of these quotes to be indicative of Prof. Gimbel’s piece as a whole. The previous comments seemed to bolster this view. It’s possible this article and its comments mischaracterized his views; however, while the cosmos may be infinite, my time is not.

In short, I think I agree with Allison W. Land’s comment.

It’s been fun. I’m moving on to other things.

— John ... Jul 27, 09:00 PM

Well, my reply was killed. Why? Because I was mildly obnoxious and/or verbose? (I was--but not as bad as some of the other comments.) Because I didn't number my comment like everyone else did? (Mine would have been 11--I didn't because I thought the computer did that automatically.) Because Mr. Goldstein correctly predicted I wouldn't move on? (I went back to look for replies, and checked out the Gimbel blog before posting this; it pretty much confirmed my instinct--though there was a somewhat meatier attack on excellence there.) Who knows? I tried posting the comment again, just in case the disappearing comment was due to technical reasons. (It'll be #13 now--we'll see if this one sticks. If it does, then I was an idiot and the computer was the co-conspirator.)

Rand was an elitist; so am I. I do believe the great artists, the great scientists, the great businessmen do more for society than the average joe. (I also think most "average joes" have much more potential than they realize. I don't think I've tapped my full potential either, and I keep hoping to find that better side of myself, and the sooner the better. But I digress.)

I suppose the real irony is that someone who purports to debunk Rand has strengthened my regard for her. A subsequent commenter, Rajendra Lakhotia, wrote, "ironical that ayn rand has described mentality of such commentators in such detail." (Sic; he didn't even use caps in his own name.) He's dead-on. I'd always thought Ellsworth Toohey was a little unrealistic in his attacks on excellence. Prof. Steve Gimbel and his defender Evan Goldstein convinced me otherwise--there really are some Tooheys out there.

This time, I think it really is time to move on to other topics. Of course the last time I said that was before this blog.

Speaking of the Constitution...

In recent decisions, the Supreme Court decided that a government school could punish a student for his out-of-school expression, and that the key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance (read: censorship) bill are Constitutional. Never mind "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"--as the student's sign read in the former case--if the Court genuinely believes the First Amendment is that limited, someone has arranged bong hits for the Justices.

Since when do we have "approved" religions?

The Pentagon has finally approved the pentacle, the Wiccan symbol of faith, for tombstones. In the New York Times' account of this decision, President Bush was quoted--from a 1999 interview regarding a decision back then to "allow" Wiccans stationed at Ft. Hood to worship--as saying, “I don’t think witchcraft is a religion, ... I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made.”

I find two aspects of this story troubling.

The first is the then governor/now president's quote. I don't think an elected offical should be deciding what is or isn't a religion. I also wonder what else he might not consider a religion. Atheism? Deism? Islam? Judaism? Catholicism? Who knows?

The second troubling aspect isn't quite that the government took so long to approve the pentacle as a symbol of faith--but rather that it could approve or disapprove at all. Doesn't Article VI of the Constitution pretty much cover that? That bit that goes "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." seems pretty clear to me. If not, what about the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."? The Constitution is crystal clear--there is no official or unofficial religion in the United States--it's a matter of conscience, the government stays out of the issue. I would think the proper course would be that each individual soldier decides what his or her symbol of faith is, and that that's what's used on his/her gravemarker.

Travel as a citizen or fly like a turkey.

“You ride a train because you can get on a train as a citizen. You can only get on a plane as a subject of the government.”

Those are the words of Kirk Thompson of Montana, as quoted in an online Missoulan article about activism for a new Montana train route.

It's not completely true--after all, passenger trains are heavily subsidized.

It's also partly true for cars--there's a freedom to driving, but I at least always get a little uneasy when I see a police car on the road--second guessing my driving decisions and actions for the past few blocks when one appears.

All that said, I enjoy flying, but I so hate and fear airport security so much that it's a no brainer for me--if I can, I stay on the ground when I travel.

Konsumer protection at its dumbest

I had dinner at Koko's (a favorite local Japanese restaurant) tonight, and, as usual, ordered sushi. When I looked at the menu, my usual imitation crab was labeled "Krab stick." This struck me as very odd, since it was previously spelled correctly. Thinking they redid the menu and had a typo, I pointed it out to the waitress.

After my meal, she informed me that the restaurant indeed intended to spell it that way--it seems the state of Florida prohibits using the proper spelling of "crab" for imitation crab. Hence "krab."

Not wanting to dupe consumers is all well and good, but I think most people would not assume misspelling meant that the product was artificial or imitation on that basis alone. "Lether" wouldn't make me think "plastic," "golde" wouldn't make me think "less than 10K, if not zero gold," and "Teevo" wouldn't make me think "DVR but not TiVo." If I thought the crab stick were crab, "krab" wouldn't make me think otherwise.

Of course, "crab stick" is--at least at the restaurants I've been to--sushi code for the imitation crab, anyway. Changing "crab stick" to "krab stick" doesn't make that clear to someone who doesn't know what a "crab stick" is to begin with. And, in any case, the waitress didn't know why it was misspelled until she asked someone else--if the whole point was to call attention to the fact that it was imitation crab, the misspelling wouldn't have done the trick, since I only found out why it was "krab" when I had already eaten the sushi and was about to pay the check.

News flash to the state of Florida, department of health or whatever: insisting that imitation crab be called "krab" does not protect consumers--it needlessly makes innocent Japanese restauranteurs look illiterate. Don't state inspectors have better things to do than meddle with orthography?

Why life is brief

A very dear friend of mine lost her mother today (or rather, since it's after midnight, yesterday). I did so over the phone, but I should again offer my condolences here.

I'd been trying to collect my thoughts to write some sort of longer poem--my friend's loss was a jolting reminder that today is the fourth anniversary of my mother's fatal heart attack, and I've never managed to write through my thoughts and feelings on her loss.

While I was composing my initial thoughts, I kept thinking back on how many philosophers and theologians emphasize that one of the things that makes live precious is its brevity--that scarcity and value are inexorably linked. Dwelling on that thought, I came up with a haiku--posted below.



Death makes life precious--
That's not much comfort when faced
With a loved one's loss.

Rating the ratings

The MPAA rating system
Overall Rating: ****


Everyone knows what "R-rated" and "G-rated" mean. That's why the rating system devised by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) works.

In the 1920s, there was great concern that movies were getting too violent and too racy. In response, seven major studios formed the MPAA, and agreed on the Hays Production Code. The Hays Code was a strict set of rules restricting what could and couldn't be shown in movies. The MPAA would approve or disapprove any movie submitted, and the studios agreed not to release movies that violated the code. By the mid-1960s, however, directors with the major Hollywood studios were starting to gripe that they were being unfairly constrained. In 1966, MGM's director Michelangelo Antonioni made "Blow-Up." Because "Blow-Up" had full frontal nudity, it was denied certification by the MPAA--but MGM released it anyway. To prevent future crises, the MPAA devised four ratings, roughly modeled on a system previously developed by the Catholic Church. Anyone submitting a movie to the MPAA for a rating would be given one of four ratings--G, M, R, or X (all movies not MPAA rated would be considered X-rated; the other three ratings were trademarked to prevent misapplication).

Since implemented in the 1960s, the rating system has gone through some minor changes. M became PG; X became NC-17. An additional rating, PG-13, was added. The MPAA now makes public the reason(s) why a movie got a PG or stronger rating. The basic system still stands, however, and does what it was designed to: allows directors and producers a free hand regarding content, but also provides parents and theaters some guide to adult content.

There are still films not primarily intended for children that are made without the R-rated content; for instance, "The Boy Who Could Fly," "October Sky," and "Life is Beautiful" have content that is probably muted enough for the whole family (and probably would be approved under the old Hays Code with little or no modification). Even so, I don't think anyone would question that many films have gratuitous sex and violence. Have movies gone too far? Films filled with sex, violence, and gore are often hugely profitable. A large portion of the public actively wants the strong content, or at least doesn't object to it enough to stop going to movies with graphic elements.

As long as there's a demand for movies with salacious content, there will be a supply. The existence of modern technology makes it impossible to return to a Hays-Code-like system. Consider "The Blair Witch Project." One of last summer's big hits at the box office, it was made by a group of film students for $40,000. Consider, also, the pornographic movie industry. There is a demand for movies with stronger sexual content than mainstream producers will tolerate (indeed, this may still be on an MPAA disapproved list--I've read conflicting sources on this point). That doesn't prevent the existence of a supply--countless obscure companies produce hundreds if not thousands of titles each year--almost always releasing them directly on video or the Internet. If the big, American entertainment companies eschewed R-rated content, maverick smaller companies and foreign producers would quickly fill the void. And what would happen to the movies already out there?

Nor would it be desirable to return to a strict "approve or disapprove" system. Sex and violence have been a part of both popular and high culture at least since the days of Homer. Granted some movies demean themselves with pointless on-screen sex and violence, but that's not always the case. The problem with the Hays Code becomes immediately apparent when you try to picture "A Clockwork Orange," "Blazing Saddles," and "Breaking the Waves"--or, to cite three examples from last year alone, "Fight Club," "South Park," and "Eyes Wide Shut"--toned down enough to earn a PG rating (essentially, the limit of the Hays Code). Graphic content can be used to make a point, or it can be just vulgar entertainment; in both cases, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't--whether or not it works, however, is an artistic concern. It's there, and some people want it but other people might object to it; that's why the rating system is desirable.

Is the current rating system perfect? Of course not. A movie's rating is decided by a board of about a dozen people who evaluate the film as a whole based on fixed guidelines. Some of the MPAA's guidelines are downright crazy. For instance, a movie can show a murder on screen, and still get a PG rating, but simply showing a marijuana cigarette requires a PG-13 rating. Sometimes the board misses. Looking back at my reviews, of 71 MPAA-rated movies I've reviewed, only 13 were misrated in my opinion. Of those, I thought nine were too harshly rated, and four were too leniently rated. Three of those four, "Fight Club," "The General's Daughter," "South Park" would have received an NC-17 from me--a financial kiss of death. That brings me to another problem; since NC-17-rated films often fair poorly at the box office compared to R-rated films, there is often a conflict between the studios, who are willing to recut and reedit their films for an R rating, and directors who are concerned about artistic integrity. For example, "Eyes Wide Shut" featured several digitally added people and plants, blocking more explicit shots, to allow the movie to be rated R--with the result that Kubrick purists were howling about the tampering with his final film. (I'd like to have seen the film as Kubrick intended--but I have no basis to judge how badly the film was "damaged" since I haven't seen the unedited version.) Splitting R into two ratings, one picking up some of the borderline NC-17 films, might solve the problem. Perhaps a better solution was proposed by Jack Valenti, the president of the MPAA, when the rating system was created. According to his article on the MPAA website, he opposed the X rating, believing, as I do, that parents should be allowed to take their children to any film they feel to be suitable. The MPAA included the adults only rating because an association of theater owners was worried about legal liability.

I used to think it would be a good idea to have separate ratings for violence, sex, drug use, language, and thematic content; in short, I used to wish that the MPAA ratings would be replaced by something more like today's TV rating system--however, of the various rating systems devised by the music, television, movie, and video-game industries, the television ratings are easily the most arcane. Since the MPAA makes the reason for any PG or stricter rating available on their website, they don't need to create a code that the NSA couldn't decipher--parents who want to know why a movie is rated R can look up the reasons, or, they accept the R rating without investigation.

The MPAA system is also far preferable to no rating system. Movie promotions are too often vague, inept, or outright misleading to rely on them as a guide to whether a film is family-oriented. (If you don't think ads can be misleading, consider that, based on the previews, I had no interest in "The Sixth Sense," but actively wanted to see "Supernova;" the former is easily among the best films of last year, while the latter is this year's big turkey so far.)

It would be easy to say that in an ideal world, parents would screen every film their children see; but then again, would such a screening even be necessary in an ideal world? In any event, we don't live in an ideal world. I have always made it a point to evaluate movies for violence, sex, drug content, strong language, and strong thematic content in my reviews; some of my readers have misconstrued my comments about the presence of such content for being a complaint about that content--they're not always (though I will criticize about what I perceive as gratuitous). Beyond my service, there are other services whose sole focus is providing this type of information. Neither my service nor the other services, however, are universal. The MPAA's rating system is; movie theaters always display a film's rating with the title on their marquee or sign, on the posters, and/or at the box office. All movie ads and previews, unless far in advance of a film's release, also show the film's rating.

The MPAA rating system isn't perfect, but as long as movies show material that some parents regard as unsuitable for their children, the rating system is an excellent means to acknowledge these parents' concerns and while preserving artistic freedom.

For more information about the history of the MPAA rating system, visit the MPAA's website:
http://www.mpaa.org
Jack Valenti's article on the rating system can be found at:
http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm [This link is not working as of August 2009.]

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/_MPAA.htm
Added to blog site: 8/5/09