Theranos: (Most likely) The next Enron

In this new era of social media, tweeting and deleting tweets, one can be grateful for these huge tools that keep your word recorded on stone, like the ten commandments that were handed to Moses, or like Hamurabi's code written in 1750 BC. You'll probably be wondering, what does my linking of social media with the ten commandments have to do with anything, and especially with Theranos.

Embrace the power of my intelligence and my visionary view of business.

Over one year and two months ago, I tweeted this:

Today, Elizabeth Holmes -Theranos' CEO-, faces a fate that so far looks quite similar to the road Jeff Skilling went back in 2001-2002.

Elizabeth Holmes dropped Stanford in 2003 to start up Theranos, a company that was supposedly able to to hundreds of blood tests using just a sample taken from the tip of your finger. 13 years later, it looks like that sentence I just wrote should have the word "supposedly" replaced by "not".

My issue in all of this, is how come investors and stakeholders put up with this for so long? It has been discovered that Holmes lured investors with preferred stock, in exchange of keeping privacy and confidenciality with the internal procedures of Theranos, that is, confidentiality of how did the testing worked... or, whether if the testing actually worked.

If you watch this video, you'll probably have similar conclussions than mine:

The most important one is that Holmes is a psycopath. This woman has lost complete sense of reality and is in total denial of her situation, her company's situation and the huge problems she's creating to her employees and her clients. It's the exact same behavior that another psycopath had: Jeff Skilling.

The irony is that she idolized Steve Jobs. The thing is, that Steve Jobs didn't go around telling people he had this little gadget thing that fit in your pants that was able to carry 1,000 songs, but kept it hidden from the public for 13 years, kept promising to show it but never showed it. Steve didn't even mention that he was working on his products when they were on development stage. He just launched the product once it was ready for public release. That's why Apple is one of the most valued companies in the world. Theranos on the other hand, was valued at Nine Billion Dollars last year by Forbes. Now it's valued at $0, also by Forbes.

You know, just because someone's blonde, gorgeously beautiful, has a baritone deep intimidating voice and is really smart, doesn't mean that person is able to do what he/she claims he/she can do.

Keep that in mind, at all times.

Rogue One: The unnecessary good/bad Star Wars Film

Rogue One

13 days after its premiere, last night I went to see Rogue One. I patiently waited 13 days, while avoiding any contact and information about the movie, its plot or any memorable scenes. After coming up to the conclussion that a longer wait would make no more sense, I picked up my gear and went to the theater. Something I have to mention, is that the wait boosted the significance of the movie, for obvious reasons you should already know.

This review by the way and as always, includes spoilers. Also -as always- I made it home, I recapped the whole movie in my mind and read a few reviews (from fans and film critics), to see where I was and where other people were, regarding the film. Anyway, let's get started.


Last year, we were presented with the biggest fiasco in the history of cinema, also known as Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Time has allowed people to figure out what I (and many other Star Wars fans) figured after watching it on its premiere night, which is, that TFA was nothing more than a complete ripoff/remake of A new hope:

Yes, exact same movie

• An important part of information is in the hands of the rebellion/resistance (plans of the Death Star/map to Luke)
• The information is hidden inside a droid (R2D2/BB8)
• The person who hid the information is captured and eventually escapes (Princess Leia/Poe Dameron)
• The droid hides on a desert planet (Tatooine/Jakku)
• The droid is found somehow by an orphan teenager with hopes of a better life (Luke/Rey) who somehow finds him/herself venturing to deliver the droid to the rebels/resistance.
• The teen unexpectedly encounters a mentor (Obi Wan/Han Solo)
• They bond and visit a cantina
• The mentor dies at the hand of the main antagonist, who is someone related to the Dark Side of the Force
• There is a planet destroying weapon (Death Star/Starkiller)
• The weapon has a weakness to its main reactor
• The rebels/resistance attack and blow up the weapon
• The teenager travels to a far planet to learn more about the Force with an ancient Jedi Master (Yoda/Luke)

Just to name a few...

and so on...

Afterwards, and almost immediately, Disney announced its Star Wars plan for the next four years, which included Rogue One for 2016: a movie about how the rebelion stole the plans of the Death Star. When I first heard about it, I definitely thought "this is a bad idea, and another excuse to milk the Star Wars franchise". It turned about I was wrong about the former thought, but right about the latter.

In a way, Rogue One feels very much like Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, whose plot is summarized as: "The story of how Bruce Wayne became what he was destined to be: Batman"; also, the result is equally comparable as well. Nolan didn't follow the disasters that were Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, but instead he took his own approach to the dark crusader, with solid references from the comics. There is a minor group of people who complain about the fact that the movie is a bit slow and that you don't really need one hour of the film to explain why or how Bruce Wayne became Batman. I guess those people missed the point of Batman Begins. You see, in the previous films, Batman had been all about the villains, with the dark knight being somewhat of a secondary character: in Burton's Batman, even Jack (The Joker) had top billing over Michael Keaton (Batman). How absurd is that? In Batman Returns and Forever, it's the villains who steal the show, and not Batman. I'm not gonna mention B&R. In Begins, the plot is all about Bruce Wayne and Batman.

So what happens in Rogue One?

This didn't happen

This is a movie where to me, it seems they aimed to get everything the way it should have been. Right from the start, you know Rogue One is on its own. There are no rolling titles and also, the introduction music for once, is not present. This is a daring feat to pull, and personally, I believe it worked effectively. Why? Because it gives Rogue One its own personality. This isn't a movie that's going to suck on the prequels' plot or characters, or from the original trilogy, or even TFA. I really liked that there were no titles and no Star Wars intro music. It sends a clear message that says "you're about to see something that you haven't seen before in Star Wars. You are about to see something that is about the rebellion. You are not going to see any Jedis, or anything about the Force. There won't be any lightsaber duels or anything." (I will further explain this reasoning a few paragraphs below).

All in all and before writing this entry, I read about 30 reviews. The overall concensus from the negative critics is that the story is weak. While I may partially agree, I also believe that is precisely the strength of the movie: like I said before, Rogue One is about how the rebellion stole the plans of the Death Star, and that's it. It's a heist movie, like say Ocean's 11, Ant-Man, or even the comedy Tower Heist. The plot is simple and straight forward, therefore Star Wars fans should have been prepared for this: a bunch of guys want to break into a facility and steal information. That's it.

They look like... well, so not Star Wars.
Exactly! They ARE the Rebelion!

Then you have the characters. All of them are forgettable, which in this case is a good thing. Again, it's all about the plot: a bunch of rebels stealing the plans of the Death Star. None of them are intended to be heroes. More importantly, they can't be heroes. The rebellion is weak, is trumbling, is out-numbered, is made up by scavengers and people with struggles. Plus, the heroes are not meant to show up in this movie. The heroes are meant to show up in the following movie. So when people say the characters are forgettable, then the movie achieved its goal. That's it.

Think about the original Star Wars for a second and what is shown about the plans of the Death Star.

• We see Leia inserting a disc into R2D2 (which we find out later, contains the plans).
• We see the looping hologram Luke discovers.
• When we get to Obi Wan, we finally see the full message, in which Leia mentions there is information vital for the survival of the rebellion (notice how there is still no mention of the plans)
• The movie continues until finally, we get to meet Leia and she finally shares what the information contains.
• We get to the rebel base where the plans are analyzed.

"So thanks Princess Leia for bringing the stolen plans.
By the way, do you know who actually stole them?
Ahh... who cares, doesn't matter now..."

My point here is that at no point there is any mention of how the plans were stolen from the Empire, or who stole them. Darth Vader talks about some transmissions, but that's about the most information we get. Never again, there is any talk, discussion or explanation of how, who, when and where did the rebels get the plans. Throughout the entire trilogy, the people who stole the plans are "anonymous heroes". The names are never mentioned and their mission is never even acknowledged.

So having that said about A New Hope (or Rogue One's significance in A New Hope), let's get on track and analyze Rogue One.

I think all the characters were very well presented, and each one had a purpose. Chirrut was particularly effective at maintaining that expectation of us seeing a Jedi in the film, which never happened and that's exactly how it should have been. His constant repeating of the line "I'm one with the force..." may have felt a bit cheesy and annoying to some fans, but it had exactly that purpose. To tease you and remind you that there would be no Jedis in this film. It brought back that old mystical feeling about the Force, which is the same feeling I felt all through the original trilogy, but definitely not feel during the prequels or The Force Awakens. The charcters talk about the Force, they mention the Force, yet none of them are acquinted with the Force, at all. This was both daring and fantasticly achieved.

Overall, good chemistry

Regarding their performances, none of the actors are going to get an Oscar, but their acting was very good. Way, way better than Hayden's, Adam's, Daisy's, John's, Oscar's and Natalie's. I will go ahead and say that performances were even better than Samuel's, Ewan's and Ian's. I can't really explain it, but I felt like I was literally watching an overture to A New Hope. I mean, ask yourself the following question? Is Mark Hamill's performence really THAT memorable? No, of course it's not. Neither is Carrie Fischer's. But they're believable. You believe their struggles and their stories, and get a feel for them (Harrison is a whole different story, because he's on a whole different level, but that's another topic). Like I said before, the merit Rogue One has is that the characters are forgettable. You are not supposed to really get related to Jyn or Cassian, because you are not allowed to. They cannot be more significant or have a greater impact on you, than Luke and Leia.

Now to the antanonists.

In short, they are all fantastic. Mark Mikkelsen is Galen Erso, just as much as Ben Mendelsohn is Orson Krennic. I liked how the film portrays the Empire, and we get to see an interesting face we never ever saw during the original trilogy or the prequels: the mid-level management and their ambitions to become more powerful. I won't talk much about Erso, Krennic and Gerrera, because there isn't much to say, other than go see them. They're just well done.

Now the cinematography, music and effets.

I definitely agree the movie IS dark. I'm still digesting whether it's good or bad, it's just that it's kind of a new approach to Star Wars. My initial response would be that I liked it, reinforcing my hypothesis of the movie's own personality. The music was excellent. Again, it did its own thing, with very brief references to the original soundtrack. It never overused it, which is exactly how it should have been done. There is not much to say about the special effects, as I pretty much liked all of them (special note on the CG characters a few paragraphs below).

Now, the intangibles and the references to the original trilogy and the prequels.

Yes, that's him alright

Let me ask you a question: did you realize this is the first Star Wars film that put names of the planes and locations? That's how much personality this film has. I loved it, because again, it made a point that Rogue One does not belong within the original trilgy nor within the prequels. It has a place on its own and that's that. Do you want another thing to think about? Not once, the name Skywalker is mentioned.

The references were superbly done. Not overused, not thrown out there for no reason, not misplaced nor misused. You see, in the problem in The Force Awakens was that it's like the writers and the director got together and said:

"ok, we have the plot, the new characters, ok now throw in the Millenium Falcon. Hey, there's the Millenium Falcon!! Ok now throw in Han Solo and Chewbacca just out of nowhere. Hey !! There's Han and Chewie!! Ok now thrown in Anakin's/Luke's saber, you know... out of nowhere. HEY LOOK! There's Anakin's/Luke's saber!!"

You get the picture, right? It's like they were desperate to get everything in there, so they put it in a blender and TA-DA! The Force Awakens.

In Rogue One, it's done the right way. There is no abuse of anything from the previous Star Wars films (or universe for that matter). Take Senator Organa for instance. He's there, but like in the background. I didn't even notice him at first. He doesn't obstruct your attention from what's really important. Same goes for C3PO and R2D2. It's so fast, that if you blink, you miss them.

Now, the main plate..

Tarkin: In short, CG still has a long way to go. Tarkin's appearance was great, but not perfect. Something physically looks out of place. He steals every scene he's in, but you're still able to figure out he's CGed. Sorry, but the technology is still not there yet.

Vader: mmmmmmmmmmm, how can I put this?

What a presence...

Ok, let me put it this way: I'll trade you ALL the screen time of Anakin/Vader in the prequels, and you give me the last scene of Vader in Rogue One... and we have ourselves a fair deal. It's THAT great. For the first time since 1997 (the year when it was announced there would be a prequel trilogy about Anakin Skywalker/Vader), we FINALLY get to see Vader in FULL SITH. We FINALLY get to see the menacing and ruthless Vader we had all imagined. As I write this review, I really and truly believe that we have ourselves a fair deal, meaning, the scene with Vader and Krennic, was like a bonus. I didn't really care for it, but it didn't bother me either. I definitely enjoyed the introduction scene of Vader. It's superbly done: he's meditating inside his tank chamber, in Mustafar, without his suit. I think that if the movie would have cut off from there and scratch the scene with Krennic, it would have been even more memorable to see him at the end. But like I said, it didn't bother me to see Krennic get some piece of advise from Vader.

Yet make no mistake. It's all about the final scene. It's one of the best experiences I've ever had watching a movie.

I was a 7 year old boy when the original trilogy was on full throttle and Darth Vader was an intimidating, menacing figure, even though all you heard from him were stories on how evil he actually was in combat against his enemies. Still, you knew Darth Vader was not someone to mess with. He was the epytome of a villain in the 80s. He made Freddy Krueger, Jason, and all those other twats look like babies. I was literally terrorized and scared of Darth Vader (and so were my friends). I remember I asked my parents to buy me a green lightsaber toy, which I kept with me at all times and I slept with it on my bed, to protect myself from Vader. I was very very afraid of him. However as time passed -and especially after the prequels- I began to lose respect for him. I actually wondered if those scary stories were actually real. 33 years later, I finally got to see Lord Darth Vader's full power in display and man, it was frightening... exactly as I had imagined him when I was a 7 year old kid. It was worth it. I'm 100% sure most male Star Wars fans over 35 years old, will probably agree with what I just said.

Holy m........!!!!!!
Oh, oh......
Oh, man.......
Now we're in......
F.......!!!!!

The scene is perfect.

Perfect. Perfect. The scene is everything I imagined and it contained everything I had nightmares about when I was a kid: It's dark and you can't see anything. It's really dark. You hear some breathing, and all of a sudden, that deadly red lightsaber is turned on. It's the only glimpse of light you can see, and it's enough to see who's holding it. It's Vader. Vader is here and he's didn't come to make any friends. It's Darth Vader. You know you have to run for your life... if you can, but even if you run, he will still get you and kill you.

I can't believe it took 33 years to FINALLY get to see Lord Darth Vader showing us why we must be scared of him.

Leia: I was expecting her, but I wasnt' expecting this. I wasn't expecting such a memorable farewell. Like I said at the beginning, seeing the movie last night, just three days after she died gives the final scene more significance. In fact, it multiplies its significance like by 100.

Overall and objectively speaking, the movie goes like this:

Act I: Good (not great).
Act II: Great
Act III: Excellent = Perfect.

Finally, what I didn't like.

The demographic casting. People who know me know I'm not racist, but I'm really tired of this "appeal to the masses" trend. It's like the studio execs got together and said

"ok, we need a white guy, a latin guy, an asian guy, an arab guy, a black guy, a european guy, a robot, and oh yes... a female lead. Put that into a blender and we're good!"

"I think we got every race in it, right? Ok roll credits!"

I'm especially and particularly tired of the female heroine trend. I mean, how many times are we going to kee watching "Hunger Games in Space" over and over again? Fortunately and like I said earlier, Felicity Jones's Jyn is forgettable. She's gone before you could even get a feel for her, which is good. But seriously and in all fairness, I really don't see or understand, why did the lead have to be female? I mean, in Twilight it makes complete sense; in Hunger Games, it sort of makes sense; in Divergent it kind of makes sense; but here in Rogue One, does it make that much sense? Especially considering you had just made The Force Awakens with Rey, and more importantly, especially considering that the movie that follows Rogue One HAS a female lead right from the start. I honestly do not understand how the movie or its plot benefited from having a female lead. Moreover, I don't see why the rebelion would let this girl gain such an important role so quickly. I'm also not very sure of how effective this "appeal to masses" thing is working out. My theater was 70% men. The women who were in the theater were with their boyfriends. There were two who were with their kids. Also, during the movie, most of the women (if not all) went to the bathroom... several times. That's how much into Star Wars they are. There were no black guys, there were no asian guys. Sure, I don't live in Asia or Africa, but you pretty much get the idea.

Another thing I didn't like was the fast paced planet travelling in the beginning. I asked myself "what is this, a film or a ride on one of New York's subway express lines?

So to wrap it all up, I would now like to address the title of my review "The unnecessary good/bad Star Wars Film".

First, the "unnecessary": did we really need a film about the story of how the rebels stole the plans of the Death Star? In short, no. Yes, this film was definitely made to make a return on investment, and that's it. I think we can all be clear on that subject.

Second, the "good/bad Star Wars film": unlike The Force Awakens, where the overwhelming concensus is that the movie is a ripoff, and unlike the prequels where the overwhelming concensus is that the story, the acting and everything around it is just plain bad, the reviews of Rogue One (and like I said, I read over 30 of them before posting mine) have a group of people who like it, a group of people who hate it, a group of people who don't care about it, and a group of people who liked Vader's scene, with another group who didn't, but that group that didn't, liked Tarkin's but didn't like Jyn, but the group who did like Tarkin, didn't like Caession, and the group who liked Caession, didn't like Jyn, but the group who liked Jyn did't like K2, but liked Vader, but the group who liked Vader........... Do you see where I'm heading to?

• Like it or not, in The Phantom Menace, there is an overall agreement that Jar Jar Binks was a disgrace.
• Like it or not, in Attack of the Clones, there is an overall agreement that the Love scenes were a disgrace.
• Like it or not, in Revenge of the Sith, there is an overall agreement that "NOOOOOOOO" was the most horrible line in Star Wars' history
• Like it or not, in The Force Awakens, there is an overall agreement that the film feels cartoony. It's like one big joke, with a Sith being challenged by your average teenage girl and a janitor, and with Luke going senile "oh you guys, want to find me? here's a piece of a map, there's another piece..."

LAAAA-LAAA-LAAAA
Traitooooorr!!!

In the 30 plus reviews I read of Rogue One, I didn't find overall agreement on anything (except of the fact that the plot is weak, which like I said, is justified). A group of people liked Vader, but didn't like Tarkin, but the group who liked Tarkin, didn't like Jyn, but the group who liked Jyn didn't like K2, but the group who liked K2 didn't like....mmmmm you get the picture.

The downside of the mass-appeal, is that you end up with a product that has a difficult placement, therefore, it has an ambiguos target market. Was this movie made for hardcore Star Wars fans? or casual Star Wars fans? Was it made for new or old fans? Answers to all these questions are the reasons why it has so many mixed reviews. Some people were expecting a more Star Wars feeling than others. Some people were expecing no Star Wars feeling at all. Some people felt offended it had no rolling titles. Some people found it appealing. Some people wanted Rogue One to have a lot in common with the Star Wars films, some people didn't want any of it.

The fulfilling scene

The way I see it, Rogue One is a complex movie with a very complex place in the Star Wars universe. It's the first attempt of doing something related to Star Wars, that doesn't have almost anything related to Star Wars, and those shoes are hard to fit in. If you ask me, it's the first Star Wars movie that actually IS about "War" (and most likely, it will probably be the only one).

Other than that, congratulations to Gareth Edwards. Finally a man who understands what Star Wars is all about and who understand what kind of product he has to deliver to meet the expectations of your consumers.

Lastly, I feel that I have the obligation of finish my review mentioning the most important fact of Rogue One.

Rogue One achieved the impossible: it gives a very logical, reasonable and believable explanation to what was perhaps the biggest plot hole of the original trilogy.

I'm quite sure you know what I'm talking about.

The Unexpurgated 2016

As an avid reader as I am, I have always been interested in historical events. I've always been a believer of the phrase "one way or another, history repeats itself." I've also been quite a fan of why, if history repeats itself, the human race keeps making the same mistakes.

I believe years from now, 2016 will be remembered as a key year of the 21st Century. I may be biased, but to me, personally I feel that ever since we turned into the new millenium, there has never been a year as significant as 2016. 

Please allow me to explain.

Aleppo today

A couple of nights ago I was chatting with a friend who is currently going through some rough times. She just had a baby born a few months ago, she's not making much money, well... you can pretty much draw the picture. Everytime we speak, I try to cheer her up everytime we chat as best as I can. So as we were chatting, I told her life is tough sometimes and while not being conformist or anything, she should always look at the bright side and be thankful that she still had some "priviliges" some people don't have. I mentioned something along the lines of the ongoing situation in Aleppo and I think my words got well received by her, as she immediately said "wow, the world is really screwed up right now, isn't it?"

As I read her comment, I wondered at the same time I got a stroke of light on the world we live in. My reply to her was: "actually, the world has always been screwed up, it just that with the internet and globalization, more people, or should I say, people who previously weren't aware of it, are now aware of it". I deepened my reasoning telling her that "Syria has been in war for about four years. There are countries in Africa that have been in war for 20, 30 years."

The Rwanda genocide

As I thought about it, episodes like the independence of South Sudan came up in my mind, a coutry that declared independence from Sudan in 2011, with an astounding 98% of popular vote in a referendum, only to find itself on a civil war a year later, that has been going on to this day. Other episodes like the Rwandan genocide, or the ridiculous hyper-inflation of Zimbabwe should be brought up as well. These episodes aren't from the 19th Century, or from World War II. This is something very real, either happening right now or happened just recently. 

Apparently, I'm not the only one with the same view.

Just this week, arab-israeli reporter Lucy Aharish lost it during a live broadcast, when while addressing the supposed Aleppo cease fire, she switched from talking in Hebrew, to English.

I can really relate to her words, as it is unexplainable why the same old human-provoked disasters are once again happening: it's like, "history repeats itself". The Armenian Genocide? Hey, let's do that again! The Jewish/Polish Genocide in WWII? Hey, let's do it again! The Srebrenica Genocide? Hey, let's do that again!!... and so on. I don't know many people who were aware of what was going on in Syria last year, but I'm quite sure the percentage has increased substantially, as there is a huge amount of people that in 2016 realized there is a genocide happening in Syria.

He is on to something when he says
"Too much PC is bad"

Another thought I have is how 2016 will also be remembered as the epitome of "political-correctness", aka "PC". This is one of the main reasons why Donald Trump won the US election and became the 45th President of my country. 

While I disagree with most of Trump's views, I have to agree with him on the fact that too much PC is just damaging society. Take Star Wars The Force Awakens for example (I know, here I go again): I mean, we can all agree that the prequel trilogy was awful, and that relaunching the original trilogy with all those idiotic and useless changes was the dumbest thing Lucalfilm could do, yet still episode I through VI had that sort of "Star Wars feeling". But with The Force Awakens, it's like Disney executives sat down in the managers room and said:

Yay! We did it! Everyone is pleased!!

"Ok! How are we going to make this movie a success? Appeal to the masses! Let's get a black guy, a latin guy, a caucasian guy, an old schooler guy, a female lead, some CGI, some puppets, the same script of A New Hope, let's put all of that together and throw it in a blender and there you go, there's our Episode VII!"

Like seriously, did they really think Star Wars would have been less successful had Finn been a white character? or instead of Rey, get a male character? How much of a difference would have been to have Lord San Tekka played by John Johnson, instead of Max von Sydow? or that Stormtrooper who freed Rey played by Pancho Lopez instead of Daniel Craig? I'm just saying.

If Trump is right on something is that indeed, the world has turned way too much PC. The internet has a lof of responsibility on this, because the internet has allowed the voice of ignorance grow louder and stronger. This has distorted reality to the point where people are beginning to lose the ability of judging what's good and what's bad, even on a simple movie. Just because a movie is "ok", shouldn't mean it has to get an 8.3 out of 10 rating on IMDb (like The Force Awakens), exactly like just because the trailer of a movie looks sooo great, the movie will turn out to be a 12 out of 10, but instead, it turned into a huge fiasco because the director, the writers and the producers couldn't do jack anything with all the resources they had on hand (like Suicide Squad, or Passengers).

Oh by the way, I forgot to add the year and place.
It's -Abraham Lincoln, 1965. Berlin Wall Speech to Jews

While Facebook does a wonderful job in keeping the world connected, it does a terrible job maintaining objectivity and reality into context. It's not like it's its main purpose, but it should pay attention to it (I guess that's why Mark conducted a meeting about censorship of fake news); I mean, come on, for the eleventh time, Putin never said "it's my job to send terrorists to God", or whatever. Twitter on the other hand is more relatable and reliable when it comes to serious information, as well as a mechanism to voice your thoughts to the world. However in Trump's case, if you live by the sword, you die by the sword, and that's something you have to accept. I mean you can't tweet things like "unpresidented". 

I think the biggest drawback of this PC era is that we are having more "tech geniuses", who are the ones developing gadgets (which is cool), but less scientists, who are the ones in charge of developing the foundations of what can actually take us, the human race, to the next level. Yes, we are (and I am) thankful to Gates, Jobs, Page, Ellison, Musk, Thiel and so on... but ask yourself: who has been the latest revolutionary scientist mind to grace our planet? Most of the people will answer Einstein, which is ok, (the actual answer is Bohr, because he died 7 years after Einstein), but apart from him, who else do we have? Stephen Hawking is the most overrated scientist of all time, and it's only a matter of years for that to be proven. Richard Feynman? Kip Thorne? Nope.

The Dream Team of the 20th Century

The human race has been without a revolutionary scientist since 1962 after the loss of Niels Bohr. Even scarier is the fact that two years from now will be the 50th anniversary of the First Human Moon Landing. Fifty years, and we haven't been able to travel further than the Moon. That's kind of sad and quite embarassing when you put into consideration that ever since we landed on the Moon, there was a Oil-embargo that triggered a gas crisis, a President resigned after an election scandal, another President announced a sort of Star-Wars-like anti-missle defense system, the Berlin Wall was torn down, the Cold War ended, we almost went into World War III, and we went through two major financial crisis, just to name a few key events that have taken place, apart from the already discussed wars in my earlier paragraphs.

So where are we headed into?

The more I think about it, it scares me a bit that all those 1984/Brazil/V for Vendetta futuristic views kind of make more and more sense. As soon as a really REALLY smart guy obtains a high political power, he or she will probably be tired of all this non-sense and will probably get rid of this insane amount of ignorance and idiocy floating around the world, maybe by implementing strict control policies or maybe even radical punishments. I myself am an INTJ, and us INTJs don't like socializing with people who aren't smart, and the more I read and the more I find myself in social events, the more I realize the global intellect is decreasing rather than increasing, which is like I said, worrying.

Is this where we are heading for?

I definitely think the upcoming years will be very interesting and I'm not sure if "looking forward to" would be the right way to qualify my views on Trump as President of the United States, but I will go as far as saying that I really wish that having him as President, serves as a wake up call for what has to come after him, to really put us in the right direction.

2016 in sports and entertainment

With ten days left on the calendar, 2016 has left its mark in the minds and hearts of millions of sports and entertainment fans all over the world. It had its good moments and its bad moments, as well as happy and sad ones. Let's take a look of what happened:

The Greatest

The Greatest passes away

Most significant moment? Definitely has to be the passing of The Greatest, Muhammad Ali. What else can be said about him? There will never be another one like him. You can check my blog entry, where I wrote a very personal perspective.

Cubs put an end to 108 years without a World Series

Seventeen presidents, two world wars, the moon landings, the invention of the internet, and even a somewhat accurate prediction from "Back to the Future II", had to pass in order to allow the Cubs to win their first World Series Title since 1908.

Finally a well-deserved championship

LeBron shuts down record-breaking Warriors

I (and most of the basketball fans) predicted either a sweep or a 4-1 Warrior victory against LeBron's Cavs in this year's NBA Finals, especially after Golden State set a new regular season record of 73-9. The Cavs however staged an amazing come back from a 1-3 deficit, and clinched the NBA Finals in a dramatic seventh game, in Oakland. LeBron finally emerged as a leader and MVP.

Nico Rosberg wins the F1 Championship

Everyone knew Mercedes would win the championship (both drivers and constructor). It all came down to either Nico or Lewis.

Earned his place as one of the
All-time greats

Novak Djokovic achieve what neither Federer nor Nadal could achieve

After eleven attempts, including losing three finals, Novak finally won the one Grand Slam that had eluded him for so long: Roland Garros. By winning it, he became only the third player in tennis history to hold all four Grand Slams at the same time, sometimg that Federer and Nadal haven't (and seems like they won't be able to) achieve.

Messi was so hurt, he quit
the national team.

Cristiano Ronaldo shines, Messi shrugs

Ever since they began playing professional football, both Cristiano and Messi have been heavily criticized throughout their careers for underperforming in their national team squad. This year, Messi once again failed to win another cup, losing the finals of the Centenario America Cup. Cristiano on the other hand, conquered the EuroCup, shutting down all his detractors and haters.

Peyton Manning retires after winning SuperBowl

In a very solid SuperBowl performance, Peyton Manning conquered the most important title in his career, and what a best way to finish a lustrius journey through the NFL.

No words...

Michael Phelps... well, did it again...

He won five gold medals and one silver, to bring his overall record total to 28 olympic medals (23 of them gold). He himself has more gold medals than 180 countries.

Retirements

Tim Duncan (arguably, the best power forward of all time), Koby Bryant (the Black Mamba), David Ortiz, Alex Rodriguez, Vin Scully.


Honorable mentions

When your opponents (and even the WR),
give up and leave you racing alone...

Something that really impressed me in 2016 was Katie Ledecky's RIDICULOUS/OUT OF THIS WORLD performance at the 800 m Olympic freestyle final








and then we have entertainment...



Leonardo di Caprio finally got his Oscar.

Captain America: Civil War exceeded expectations.

Suicide Squad was the biggest let down of the year.

and I still trying to figure out how did we lose so many legends in the same year:

They will all be missed...

David Bowie
George Martin
Prince
Keith Emerson
Greg Lake
Leonard Cohen
Alan Rickman
Gene Wilder
Maurice White
Paul Kantner
George Gaynes
Billy Paul
George Kennedy
Doris Roberts
Ron Glass
Umberto Eco
Peter Shaffer
Sir Neville Marriner
Glen Frey
Gary Shandling
Zsa Zsa Gabor