Page 4 Friday, April 12, 2013
Opinions
Texas must deal with state-sized problem Y
ou know the substance we look so earnestly for on Mars? H2O. It’s supposed to give clues as to if there were or could be life on Mars. Because water is important for life, as we know it on Earth, and nearly 60 percent of our body is comprised of it. Water scarcity has been an evernagging issue the past few years in Texas, but we’ve put that issue aside hoping it would go away. It hasn’t. Texas can no longer afford to wallow in denial about the problem. We’re facing a huge water crisis. In an article by Texas Tribune writer Kate Galbraith, which appeared in Sunday’s issue of The New York Times, highlighted the impending drought affecting not only Texas, but also other states
Jordan Sigler in the U.S. With local states competing for water resources, the issue of where water flow goes can no longer be left up to court decisions. The problem is scarcity. The courts don’t create more water; they can only decide where the law allocates it. In this country, we have a history of pushing problems to the future, such as Medicare and Social Security, but natural consequences can’t be procrastinated. Something has to be done now to procure water. According to an article on
nytimes.com, Wichita Falls is on a list of communities in Texas who could be without water in 180 days. This has happened in Spicewood in 2011. At the time, H2O2U trucks had to ship in water for residents. Because this isn’t sustainable for the long term, ingenuity must happen for basic survival. The philosopher Voltaire hit upon how people need to work to fight against the ills of the world in his satirical novella “Candide.” The protagonist, Candide, starts out with the ideals of his optimist tutor Pangloss, who teaches Candide this world is the “best of all possible worlds.” Candide learns through misadventures that terrible occurrences do happen in this best of all possible worlds, and his optimism fades. However, Candide resolves to do his part to make the world the best
place he can instead of being complacent and thinking everything happens for the best. He says at the end, “let us cultivate our garden.” Like Candide, we need to learn to be craftier on the issue of how we conserve water. I cringe when people throw half-filled water bottles in the trash or plastic recycling bin. Pour out the liquid you’re not going to drink anymore and either give it to plant-life or give it a chance to evaporate. Having water trapped in plastic containers that don’t break down, in the midst of a water crisis, is mind-numbingly stupid. Water should be saved when using the restroom. Why do I need to relieve myself in clean water? Instead of using clean water in toilets, a better alternative is using gray water, or recycled water, to curb water usage.
Having green lawns is no longer the top priority for Texas. Cities should look to alter ordinances even more on watering lawns. The effort has to go beyond private citizens. According to texastribune.org, state legislators are looking at Senate Bill 873, by Sen. Glenn Hegar. The bill would require oil and gas companies to have permits for using water from localities. This bill is necessary as oil and gas companies use fracking to extract their products. According to the article in the Texas Tribune, fracking uses at least 4 to 6 million gallons of water to break up rocks to get to oil and gas. This is a batty amount of water for a source of pollution that may cause global climate change and thus put more strain on clean water. The state should look at
ways to challenge these oil and gas companies to use alternative and less wasteful methods of acquiring energy resources. Action must be taken to ensure we can survive in Texas and other parts of the country. Gov. Rick Perry’s days of prayer for rain didn’t work as well as we had hoped. Those prayers for rain have either been answered with a no, or heaven watches in silence. We need to prioritize uses for water. We need to determine what we really need water for: to nourish our environment, replenish our bodies and cultivate our crops. As in Candide, we must cultivate our own garden, but with a more efficient use of water. Sigler is a junior journalism major from Goshen, Ind. ➤➤ jsigler@dailytoreador.com
The Trots
By Andrea Farkas
Movie producers working in the wrong dimension Recently, 3D has been undergoing an identity crisis. For almost a century following its invention in 1915, the technology had been a gimmick of sorts—an optical novelty used to draw audiences to mostly cut-rate films—but this is no longer the case. With the success of 3D visual masterpieces such as “Avatar” and “Life of Pi,” films that have revolutionized the medium through new production techniques, there has been an increase in both interest in and expectations for 3D movies. However, instead of embracing the (admittedly expensive) techniques used in “Avatar” and “Pi” for new films, Hollywood has focused its energies in another direction: adding inferior post-production 3D to recent classics and re-releasing those films in theaters. This is a shame, because it unnecessarily dilutes rather than furthers the progress made in 3D of late. More than that, it misses the
point—the demand to see these re-releases is almost entirely independent of them being in 3D. Scanning the slate of recent and upcoming 3D films, the number of re-releases is simply astounding. Disney and Pixar have seemingly already begun the process of rereleasing every classic animated film of theirs, already hitting “Finding Nemo,” “The Lion King,” and both original “Toy Story” films. James Cameron took some time out of his deep-sea-diving schedule to dredge up “Titanic” for re-release. Most recently, Steven Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park” was brought back to theaters in 3D on Friday. Looking at “Jurassic Park” specifically, what does the addition of 3D bring to the movie that essentially marks the beginning of the modern special effects era? The answer: not much. As with most 3D films that were originally shot in 2D, the bad aspects of seeing “Jurassic Park” in 3D are far more noticeable than the good ones. It’s a lot easier to be distracted by the constant fuzzy, out-
Let us know what you think. Check out The DT online at www.dailytoreador.com Blogs, polls, video, slideshows, article comments and more. All available online now.
of-focus blades of grass and leaves in the foreground than it is to appreciate the intimate sense of space 3D adds to the famous kitchen scene in which Tim and Lex are hunted by the Velociraptors. The lost image quality and brightness noticeably affect the entire film, whereas the few moments made extra-thrilling by 3D, such as when a raptor lunges upward through a ceiling tile at Lex’s swinging leg, last only seconds. Given the choice between seeing a film in its original 2D and a version using postproduction 3D conversion, there’s really no room for debate—2D wins every time. This is a shame, because 3D has already proven that it can, when used well, be awe-inspiring. It sounds obvious, but shooting a 3D film on cameras designed for 3D makes the film look better. A lot better. James Cameron’s pioneering Fusion Camera System brought an extra level of immersion and beauty to his “Avatar” and Ang Lee’s “Life of Pi,” mainly through its subtle ability to convey motion without
EDITORIAL BOARD
By WILL HOLUB-MOORMAN
THE HARVARD CRIMSON (HARVARD U.)
sacrificing crispness. When the storm engulfs the ship in “Pi,” or when Jake first flies his “ikran” in “Avatar,” the addition of 3D makes the action feel supremely present, removing any sense of distance between the viewer and the film. Post-production 3D achieves this to an extent, but there are always imperfections that break the illusion. For example, in “Jurassic Park,” the scene in which Dr. Grant rescues Tim from a car stuck in a tree is made more engrossing by the way the 3D manipulates the viewer’s perception of the branches’ movement, but the scene also suffers due to how out of
focus the leaves look. In short, the details matter. It also seems as if the success of re-released 3D films (“Titanic 3D” grossed close to $60 million domestically) simply reflects a growing demand to see these movies in theaters, rather than a large demand for 3D versions of these movies. Essentially, the generation that grew up watching “Toy Story” on VHS and DVD is starting to buy movie tickets and is jumping at the chance to see old favorites in theaters, 3D or not. If this is true, Hollywood might be much better served by re-releasing more movies without 3D postproduction than by going through
Follow The DT on Twitter
DAILYTOREADOR For all your Tech news and sports
Copyright © 2013 Texas Tech University Student Media/The Daily Toreador. All DT articles, photographs and artwork are the property of The DT and Student Media and may not be reproduced or published without permission. The Daily Toreador is a designated public forum. Student editors have the authority to make all content decisions without censorship or advance approval.
Editor-in-Chief Jose Rodriguez editor@dailytoreador.com Managing Editor Kassidy Ketron managing@dailytoreador.com News Editor Catherine McKee news@dailytoreador.com La Vida Editor Paige Skinner features@dailytoreador.com Opinions Editor Michael DuPont II opinions@dailytoreador.com Sports Editor Zach DiSchiano sports@dailytoreador.com
the process of changing a select few movies into 3D. It would be cheaper for everybody: film studios wouldn’t have to pay post-production companies millions of dollars for every 3D conversion, and moviegoers wouldn’t have to pay the obnoxious three-dollar 3D surcharge. Win-win. 3D has an exciting future, but it won’t be as exciting if Hollywood keeps on using the technology to look backward. Instead, Hollywood should trust the quality of its older classics, re-release them without 3D, and focus on giving aspiring James Camerons and Ang Lees the tools they need to realize their visions.
Breaking News Phone: 806-742-3393, Fax: 806-742-2434 Email: dailytoreador@ttu.edu
Photo Editor Brad Tollefson photo@dailytoreador.com Electronic Media Editor Andrew Nepsund online@dailytoreador.com Copy Editor Emily Gardner
REACHING US Newsroom: 806-742-3393 Sports: 806-742-2939 Advertising: 806-742-3384 Classified: 806-742-3384 Business: 806-742-3388 Circulation: 806-742-3388 Fax: 806-742-2434 Email: dailytoreador@ttu.edu
Corrections Call: 806-742-3393 Policy: The Daily Toreador strives for accuracy and fairness in the reporting of news. If a report is wrong or misleading, a request for a correction or a clarification may be made. Publishing information Periodical Postage paid by The Daily Toreador, Student Media building, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 79409. Publication number: 766480. The DT is a student newspaper published Monday through Friday, September through May; Tuesdays and Fridays June through August, except during university examination and vacation periods. The DT is funded primarily through advertising revenues generated by the student sales staff with free campus distribution resulting from student service fees.
$1.
Subscriptions Call: 806-742-3388 Subscription Rates: $150 annually; single issues:
Postmaster: send address changes to The Daily Toreador, Box 43081 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409. Letters The Daily Toreador welcomes letters from readers. Letters must be no longer than 300 words and must include the author’s name, signature, phone number, Social Security number and a description of university affiliation. Students should include year in school, major and hometown. We reserve the right to edit letters. Anonymous letters will not be accepted for publication. All letters will be verified before they are published. Letters can be emailed to dailytoreador@ttu.edu or brought to 180 Media and Communication. Letters should be sent in before 3 p.m. to ensure the editors have enough time to verify and edit the submission. Guest Columns The Daily Toreador accepts submissions of unsolicited guest columns. While we cannot acknowledge receipt of all columns, the authors of those selected for publication will be notified. Guest columns should be no longer than 650 words in length and on a topic of relevance to the university community. Guest columns are also edited and follow the same guidelines for letters as far as identification and submittal. Unsigned Editorials appearing on this page represent the opinion of The Daily Toreador. All other columns, letters and artwork represent the opinions of their authors and are not necessarily representative of the editorial board, Texas Tech University, its employees, its student body or the Board of Regents. The Daily Toreador is independent of the College of Mass Communications.