marko tosic, super photogenic baby

marko tosic

marko tosic

marko tosic

marko tosic

marko tosic

probably every parent says this, but i think our son is one of the most photogenic babies ever!

lance armstrong would take the stage from triathletes for years

armstrong on bike

i would really like to see lance armstrong race ironman world champs, but then i would not notice anyone else.

there is controversy about t.j. murphy’s article which mentions lifting lance’s racing ban.

result would be that lance armstrong races in ironman and other races.

lance is a veteran athlete with a completed cycling career.

it does not really matter how he ended that career.

what matters is that he is a powerful and dominant media figure.

lance is wallmart of cycling and he will shadow everything else.

free market is good, but some protection of other triathletes is needed.

using limited media resources at disposal to triathletes on lance takes opportunities away from triathletes.

for triathlon to grow it must build its of athletes, nice and nasty ones – not borrow them from other sports.

i am not saying anyone should be told not to do something.

i am just offering a different point of view on lifting of lance armstrong ban :)

focus on team, not result

vintage football team

team are people who make something.

result is that something.

my own style has developed from extreme focus on result to focus on team.

team is not only our team at jtt, but everybody who contributes to making the result.

in my experience, focus on result does not move things forward.

what happens in most cases is the team stops existing when result is reached.

and there is no continuance of the know-how collected inside the team.

i just watched final fantasy: the spirits within and i was reminded about team vs results.

final fantasy was made in 2001 and it was an amazing achievement at that time.

but it lost money and company went bankrupt.

if they were less obsessed about the result and care more about the team,

we – the consumers – would have more of their films to enjoy.

american sniper: second look

american sniper

one question is dominant after watching american sniper:

how can someone kill so much, document it, promote it, and yet go unpunished?

american sniper movie is excellent because it reminds us of definition of murder.

if murder is done in the interest of state, then it is not a crime, but a kill.

if murder is done against the interest of state, then it is a crime, and is a murder.

and state interest is interest of specific individuals always.


if murder is done in the interest of specific individuals, then it is not a crime.

if murder is done against the interest of specific individuals, then it is a crime.

american sniper also reminds us of the monopoly on murder by the state, meaning specific individuals.

the license to murder, or the right to murder, is granted by specific individuals to other specific individuals.

i can not imagine a better example of this basic state function than american sniper.

usa, as one of the more controversial and powerful states.

and snipers, as state employees who do not combat, but only execute.

there you go, i ideologized a movie again.

american sniper review


first, let me be clear:

reviewing movies is like reviewing candy.

movie is a product designed to sell to a specific demographic.

no matter how much whoever (me) tries to make movies ideologically relevant, they are not.

they are as relevant as a candy or any other fast moving consumer product.

someone makes them so they can sell.

and nothing can sell to everybody, so it is only made to be sold to few.

nothing more.

movies somehow do turn out to be ideological when people write review like i do below.

but this has nothing to do with how they are made.

just as candy is not made to change the world, but to make money for candy people.

which is fine (i am too in the candy business).


chris kyle

i read a bit about chris kyle.

in belgrade there is plenty of guys like that, especially after 1990s wars.

high on roids, religious tattoos, did some combat, work or own security company.

every second word is “family”, “religion”, “country”, “nation”.

as kids they were ultras.

prototype is someone like arkan.

only difference is that in serbia there are no mechanism for these guys to:

– count the kills in such a precise and bureaucratic way (no such management);

– publish a book, especially with ghost writers (here you have to write that shit yourself);

– get a movie deal;

– start a consulting company based on “violence does solve things slogan” and actually have customers.

usa is more than 300 million people, so even a small percentage is enough to cover all of the above.

commercial systems with large, unique, and homogenic audience are not available outside usa.

everywhere else in the world sub-cultures are smaller and more mixed.

so basically, kyle is not a unique individual, but the system within he operates is.

put a local tifosi from my neighboorhood and kyle next to each other, they are clones.

so the movie is not a monument to an individual, but to the system.

and i respect that.



most of it is a cheap badly directed tv movie.

there is one “star wars” moment:

a rocket flies by some guys head, same guy shots guy who shot the rocket in the head.

that was good.

the rest seems like it was shot by people who never drove cars or fired guns.


in the sand storm scene kyle is shot in the leg and needs to get back in the van or he will be killed.

eastwood wanted to suspense in this crucial and final scene.

but how fast could a 100 kg man shot in the leg limp – maybe 5 kmh.

yet he still is shown chasing the van which is speeding.

they are screaming at kyle to grab their hand and he barely makes it.

at 5 kmh.

try to drive your car at 5 kmh and you will realize how unrealistic this whole scene is.

then you realize that the whole movie is full of fake situations like that.

star wars seems far more realistic than american sniper.

eastwood just does not have a clue how to create that authentic feeling.

i hated invictus because he did shots next to cape town cafes built in 2000s.

he just does not do the research and is superficial.

simply: eastwood is too lazy to pull off a realistic movie.

and i do not respect a lazy guy like that.


bladley cooper

he did well.

too bad he wasted himself on this character with this director.

i guess he had to take the role or someone else would have done it.

i try to imagine he had some kind of a reason do to such a bad movie.


really bad style

– skulls as logos on military gear – has not been cool since SS insignia;

– calling enemy combatants savages – like wtf is going on with this “savages” stuff;

– whole crusader christianity vs islam undertone makes no sense whatsoever;

– antagonists speak less for about 3 seconds in total.


fall from grace

overall attention this movie and back story got from main stream is very unpleasant.

some examples:

time editor interviewing chris kyle about his kills as if they are discussing candy;

conan kissing chris kyle rear.



both usa and serbia have following characteristics:

– representative democracy is used;

– free speech is allowed;

– murder is legal and allowed if it is in the interest of the state.

under these parameters it is not strange to have books, movies, and businesses like chris kyle’s.

he is as much a product of above three characteristics as larry flint, isaac newton, or anyone else.

he is actually more qualified to speak of killing than byron.

definitely more thought needs to be given to this.