optoblog.com

The “On Top of the World” music video by Imagine Dragons is my most favorite music video of all time.  The video portrays a faked moon landing while referencing Stanley Kubrick and late 1960s pop culture.  It was written and directed by Matt Eastin and Corey Fox.  In addition to Imagine Dragons, it features the lead actor from Napoleon Dynamite, Jon Heder, and many from the cast of StudioC, BYUtv’s sketch comedy show.   Guest appearances also include Whit Hertferd, Marvin Payne, the monkey from Friends, members of New Electric Sound, and Robert Connolly from Fictionist.  Also appearing is Alex Sermon, wife of lead guitarist Wayne Sermon, and Aja Volkman, wife of lead singer Dan Reynolds and from the band Nico Vega.

Making Of

Some great coverage regarding the making of the video includes:

• Costume/Fashion designer Lindsey Shores outlines in a Herald Extra Article the costumes, and her website has great photos from the shoot.
• A Salt Lake Tribune article has great behind-the-scenes info
• A Fox 13 TV article has a great feature and reports that co-director Corey Fox claims that there are over 50 hidden 1960s references in the video
• UtahValley360 article: “15 things you didn’t know about Imagine Dragons’ music video“
• iluminatiwatcher.com article on hidden symbols in the music video

Studio C and Matt Meese

Interestingly, many of the StudioC cast members are in the video, but not all of them!  Here is a list of Studio C cast members and their roles along with a link to their twitter accounts:

• Mallory Everton is a hippie.
• Jeremy Warner is another hippie.
• James Perry is the boom mic operator.
• Whitney Call is an assistant to Stanley Kubrik (or President Nixon?).
• Jason Gray is a Man in Black.
• Adam Berg is a TV-in-the-shop-window viewer.
• Natalie Madsen is another TV-in-the-shop-window viewer.

Curiously missing are Matt Meese, Stacey Harkey, and Stephen Meek.  It’s possible that with a tight shooting schedule that the three of them were out-of-town or otherwise disposed, but is that likely?  Sure, neither Stacey nor Stephen are  the creator of Studio C, so they may not have been asked to be in the music video.  (However, why not??!!!???   What is wrong with you guys?  Will Stacey and Stephen ever speak out about this injustice?)  Now, Matt Meese on the other hand created Studio C.  Why wouldn’t he be in the Imagine Dragons music video with almost all the other Studio C cast?

UPDATE: Read this comment by an anonymous poster who seems to know what he or she is talking about.

Well, it turns out Matt may be in it after all.  Take a careful look at this image.

I propose that the guy in the brown fedora wearing sunglasses is none other than Matt Meese! (UPDATE: The aforementioned anonymous poster says the Fedora Guy is Monson Hayes.)

Notice the face in question is baby smooth with faint lips just like these photos of Matt Meese trying not to laugh:

[UPDATED: IMDB now says, :(13 Nov 2013) Music video released for Imagine Dragons “On Top of the World” – Window Watcher”  I had previously been informed that IMDB said he was a Russian cosmonaut, which he clearly wasn’t.  Sorry about the much-ado-about-nothing.]

So I apologize to Matt Meese for accusing him of not being in the video when he actually was.  It’s possible that Stacey and Stephen were in the video but their scene was cut.  I would really like an explanation.  It’s curious that more people involved in the making of the music video haven’t blogged every detail about their involvement.  The only one to do so that I’ve seen is the costume designer (see link above).  Did they have to sign non disclosure agreements  or something?

Hot Topic

Imagine Dragons currently have four official videos. This narrative could be considered controversial because, well, just ask anyone, “Do you think we put men on the moon?”

You are likely to get strong responses for Yes and No, Continue Reading »

Tags: Imagine Dragons, Moon, Music, off topic, politics, Studio C

[scrippet]
EXT. CITY STREET – DAY

Our plain-clothes, police action hero, DOYLE, stands in the street, arms outstretched. A 1971 PONTIAC LEMANS screeches to a halt, barely missing him.

Doyle pulls a gun and muzzles the driver.

DOYLE
Get out of the car!

The DRIVER acts like he is about to unbuckle his seat belt, but really he draws a GUN from his appendix holster.

BAM BAM BAM! All three hit Doyle in the chest. Bending down to a knee, Doyle returns fire, but his shots go wide as the LeMans skids out in reverse.

Doyle collapses on the blacktop.

The bad guy Doyle was chasing gets caught later by a smarter, more polite policeman who is still alive.
[/scrippet]

Tags: movie, politics

[scrippet]
EXT. DESERT HIGHWAY – DAY

KURT RUSSELL and KATHLEEN QUINLAN look blankly at the engine of their Jeep Grand Cherokee.

A TRACKER TRAILER pulls over, kicking up dust in their faces. A seeming normal-looking JOE hops out.

JOE
Looks like yer broken down. Why don’t the missus ride with me in ta town. You, feller, stay here till the tow truck arrives.

KATHLEEN
(to Kurt)
I don’t know…

KURT
That sounds perfect!
(to Kathleen)
I’ll see you later, honey.

They smooch. Joe is already opening the door to the passenger side of the cab. She walks over but questioningly looks back at Kurt.

KURT
Stay safe! I’ll be waiting. Right here.

Joe helps her up. Closes the door and walks around to his side.

JOE
Don’t worry. I’ll take care of her.

Kurt waves. The truck pulls out. Two hundred yards later, the truck crosses into the oncoming lane, CRASHES over a speed limit sign, and comes to a rest after glancing a concrete barrier.

EXT. CRASH SITE – CONTINUOUS

Kathleen exits the cab. With an unsteady gate she walks in the middle of the highway. Pupils dilated, she checks both directions frequently. She has BLOOD spatters on her face. She rubs an ear with one hand and holds a REVOLVER with the other. Kurt runs up.

KURT
What the heck happened?

Kathleen stows the gun back in her purse.

KATHLEEN
(shouting)
What?

Kurt leans in to her ear.

KURT
What happened?

Kathleen slows her jitters.

KATHLEEN
Well, he said he was going to rape, torture, and kill me. I said to stop the truck, but then he tried to restrain me, brandishing a knife. So I shot him.

Kurt looks at her and then into the cab. Joe is hunched over. Blood is spattered around the windows.

KURT
Well, we can still drive this rig into town. Do you want to dump the body out or unhitch the trailer?

KATHLEEN
Body.
[/scrippet]

Tags: movie, politics

A urologist posted a sign at his office, and some people are going nuts.

So…I’m not sure I would pick that fight because I just want money in exchange for services, but if I felt that a certain person or entity were actively fighting against me obtaining patient volume and deserved fees, then yes, I would have to push back.

This doctor also put some literature in his waiting room about the negative effects of Obamacare and its timetable. Holy cow, imagine the left’s vitriol if you stuck a Bible in your waiting room! I put NRA magazines in my waiting area, and guys love them! I also put National Geographic in there too. You know, just to keep it balanced. I think it’s the doctor’s right to put any decent reading material he wants in the waiting room. No one is forcing them to read it. They can take their business somewhere else if they want.

I’ll bet 80% of my patients don’t even know what magazines I have in my waiting area since I don’t like to keep people waiting.

I’m still participating in Medicaid until it doesn’t make it worth my while. I don’t really agree that there is such a thing as government sponsored-medicaid, but for now I think of it as getting my own tax dollars back.

Anyway, I reserve the right to express my political, economic, and religious views to anyone who will listen, inside or outside the clinic. Just because I’m a doctor doesn’t mean I can’t be active in causes I believe in. However, I don’t think people pay me to preach to them. I’m pretty sure they came in for an eye exam. Plus I don’t have time to go off on political or religious rabbit trails because I hope the next patient is almost done with their paper work.

I don’t care what a patient’s political/religious/etc philosophy is. I don’t care if I have to speak to them in English or Spanish or through a family member interpreting, I just want a fee in exchange for a service, and I want to perform as many exams per day as possible.

Tags: doctors, Free Speech, Government, insurance, patients, politics

Here is most of the audio for the 2012 Cache County Utah GOP Convention held at Mt. Logan Middle School in Logan, UT on 4-11-2012 from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. I neglected to “start the tape” for the county candidates, but I got the rest. I’ve broken the audio up into two files. Here is a list of the candidates and their corresponding time slots on each audio portion.

Part 1: 2012 Cache County Utah GOP Convention Audio Part 1

• Senate Race:
  • William J. Lawrence 0:00-4:42
  • Jeremy Friedbaum 4:57-10:04
  • Dale Ash 10:11-15:20
  • Timothy Aalders 15:26-20:26
  • Orrin Hatch 20:32-25:15
  • Chris Herrod 25:26-30:26
  • Loy Brunson 30:34-35:41
  • Dan Liljenquist 35:48-40:59
  • David Chiu 41:06-46:20
• Congress Distric 1:
  • Rob Bishop 46:47-51:13
  • Jacqueline Smith 51:23-55:44
  • Leanord “Joe” Fabiano 55:55-1:01:06

Part 2 2012 Cache County Utah GOP Convention Audio Part 2

• Governor
  • Lane Ronnow 0:29-5:33
  • Ken Sumsion 5:45-10:48
  • Morgan Philpot 10:55-15:53
  • David Kirkham 16:03-21:17
  • William Skokos 21:24-26:37
  • Gary Herbert 26:45-31:54
• Attorney General
  • John Swallow 32:40-37:38
  • Sean Reyes 37:47-42:46
• State Auditor
  • John Dougall 42:52-44:46
  • Austin Johnston 44:53-49:53
• National Committeeman
  • Don Guymon 50:06-53:00
  • Bruce Hough 53:08-56:18

Almost every candidate felt the need to relate their connection to Cache Valley. My vote for the funniest pander of the night goes to Lane Ronnow (listen to it on Part 2 0:58):

You know, everyone tries to tie themselves to where ever we are speaking, and I want you to know that, uh, in my misspent youth when I was a television news reporter I dated the dairy princess from Cache County.

Also, don’t miss Orrin Hatch’s joke at 20:51. LANGUAGE WARNING!!! 😉

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Tags: off topic, politics

The Utah Optometric Association reported in an e-mail to its members on Friday Feb. 17, 2012 that the UOA’s lobbyist has word from Rep. Hughes that he will not run HB408.

Of course, they state that they have no guarantee someone won’t try to run it in a future year, so they suggest donating to the UOA-PAC.

As of today, the official Utah.gov site for HB408 doesn’t have any status updates since Feb. 4, 2012, but if lobbyists and politicians are to be believed, we can give a little sigh of relief.

Tags: Government, Organized Optometry, politics

The Utah Optometric Association is very worried about H.B. 408 which is being introduced for the 2012 legislative session. I know they must be worried because a volunteer optometrist from the association called me, and I’m not even a member of the UOA.

It turns out they are rightfully worried because while the title, “Use of Optical Scan Machines,” might seem innocuous, what is really behind the curtain is pernicious.

While there is currently no text on the le.utah.gov website for H.B. 408, sources say that the bill’s sponsor, Greg Hughes, from Draper, UT (home of 1800Contacts) intends to allow the current prescription law to be changed to allow a person to buy glasses based on the reading of an autorefractor.

Apparently, the plan is for a company, like 1800Contacts, to set up a Glasses Kiosk in a popular store, like Walmart. (By the way, 1800Contacts has been selling glasses for a while.) The person puts their head in the machine, the autorefractor spits out some glasses numbers, a pupilometer measures a p.d., the person selects their frame and lens options, then they slide their credit card and wait for their glasses to arrive in the mail. (Maybe a nicer kiosk would measure the Rx in your current glasses and have you look at an eye chart, and factor those measurements into the numbers the kiosk “prescribes” you.)

If allowed, I predict an unintended consequence will be that no optical will adjust your glasses for free, like they currently do. You will have to show a receipt just to get your glasses adjusted, so everyone buying glasses from kiosks or internet sites will walk around looking like goobers and in pain from poorly adjusted glasses.

Other obvious consequences will be that people will walk around with headaches and blurry vision since autorefractors are notoriously inaccurate and will usually over-estimate nearsightedness and underestimate farsightedness. And say nothing of the fact that many people need prism to see straight/avoid headaches.

But here is the biggest reason to forsake this bill: People need eye exams to ensure good eye health. A refraction is only one piece of a complete eye exam. I’ve already written about the woman who only wanted more contacts, but because she had an eye exam, I saw some worrisome findings and referred her for more specialty care which discovered a brain tumor.

That’s just one patient. I’ve actually done that a couple times with brain tumors. Other times I’ve had patients whom I’ve diagnosed leukemia, diabetes, pituitary adenoma, increased cerebral spinal fluid pressure, glaucoma, macular degeneration, eye infections, allergy eyes, and more all just from a “routine eye exam.” None of these people thought there was something wrong- they just wanted new glasses or more contacts.

We can’t ignore that an eye exam is more than just looking at an eye chart and getting a refractive prescription.

But let’s say you wanted to. Let’s say you are simply a consumer advocate who wants to help people buy glasses. Your idea is to waste everyone’s time and money by making a law to separate the refraction from an eye exam. The consumer who values their eye health will simply also get an eye exam in addition to buying a glasses Rx and purchasing spectacles from a kiosk.

Okay, Utah Legislature, why are you stopping there? What if I’m a business that wants to sell antibiotics cheaper, to more people, than the present system of physicians and pharmacies? I want to set up kiosks that take your temperature. If you have a high temperature, you get vended an antibiotic. Sounds great for consumers, right? Why should eye care providers and opticals be the only ones to suffer? Make physicians and pharmacies suffer as well!

If you want to change the system, change it fairly for everyone. Let’s be just like third world countries which don’t require doctor prescriptions at pharmacies or optical shops. If it’s about consumer advocacy, what could be better, right?

Of course, you will essentially be forcing a large portion of health care providers to change professions. And don’t even mention how news reports will be full of people self treating, taking the wrong medicine for the wrong diagnosis, and dying. It’s a small price to pay for consumer choice, but since I have some libertarian leanings, I wouldn’t mind trying it out as long as every medical profession participates and not just optometrists.

However, if you don’t think that all roads should be toll roads and marijuana should be legal, then let’s continue to require prescriptions for medicines and medical devices, like glasses and contacts.

Choose one, Utah Legislature. Just be consistent across all professions to make the playing field level.

If you have an opinion on 2012’s H.B. 408, then contact your Utah lawmaker.

On a side note, I hope the sponsor of H.B. 408, Greg Hughes, is happy with himself. The UOA is burning tens of thousands of dollars (that it can’t afford) on lobbyists that only work for six weeks to fight H.B. 408. Even if HB408 is defeated this year, who knows if it will come up again next year and they’ll have to spend more money again! Mr Hughes, I’m not sure how you can sleep at night. You are causing poor optometrists to spend tons of money fighting legislation that you introduced only because a big business told you to. Even if you said you were sorry and withdraw the bill, you can’t un-burn the cash you’ve caused to be burned.
Please, lawmakers, try to think outside your wallet when making decisions about bills to consider during legislative sessions. I propose we only allow you to meet every two years in order to provide more stability for us business owners.

Tags: 1-800, doctors, economy, Government, optometrist, Organized Optometry, patients, politics

I went to a post office that I don’t normally frequent and was met at the parking lot entrance with this sign:

For those of you who can’t see the above picture, the sign says:

VEHICLES AND THEIR
CONTENTS ARE SUBJECT
TO INSPECTION WHEN
ENTERING, LEAVING, OR
WHILE PARKED WITHIN
THIS RESTRICTED AREA.
ENTERING INTO THIS AREA
CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO
THE INSPECTION
(39 C.F.R. PART 232.1(B)(2)

And it’s not like this was some special parking lot out back. This is the front parking lot that everyone who uses the post office would enter. So here is my question: Why? Even if this is entirely legal…why? I don’t think it’s right.

When did this happen? Why didn’t the media get all over this?

When is it going to stop?

Tags: Government, politics, privacy

Dear Vendors,
Don’t try to sell me on green. Don’t try to entice me by telling me how “green” your product is. Don’t give me green bags. Don’t color your merchandising in earth tones.

The jig is up. We all know that anthropogenic global warming is hysterical. I know it’s your job to hoodwink doctoral-level-educated men and women, but this whole “go green” thing is even more of an insult to our intelligence than even the product your are trying to sell us.

Feel free to go back to marketing the old way: showing us how your product is going to help us make money and improve quality of life for our patients.

Please watch this video by Roy W. Spencer, former NASA climatologist and climate expert, and produced by Declaration Entertainment:

Note to to people on the fence: No one is advocating dumping toxic sludge into the river or aquifers.

Note to anthropogenic global warming hysterics: Move to the Amazon, you hippie. Ipso facto, America and all its greatness is not for you.

Tags: economy, politics, vendors

I tried billing corneal topography (92025) to Utah Medicaid as part of managing a patient’s keratoconus, and I was shocked to have it denied. The reason?

The procedure code is inconsistent with the provider type/specialty (taxonomy).

So I called Utah Medicaid, and confirmed that 92025 is the code for corneal topography, and they confirmed that optometrists are not allowed to be paid for corneal topography because only physicians and hospitals are allowed to bill this procedure code. I pressed that optometrists manage conditions like keratoconus with corneal topography and that their policy definitely needs to be changed. The UT medicaid worker said she would bring it up at their meeting, but that meeting isn’t until next week, and she had several other issues that weren’t address at the last meeting.

So, I think she was telling me that she couldn’t guarantee that anything regarding my issue would be addressed in the near future. Even if they do discuss it sometime this month, they might not change their mind.

THIS IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS!!!. Hospitals? Hospitals can bill for corneal topography? How often do they do that? Can we name even one hospital that even owns a corneal topographer? The only physicians who use corneal topographers are ophthalmologists, but if I were a pediatrician they would allow me to bill for it?

Attention Utah Medicaid Taxonomy-Procedure-Provider-Type Committee: I hereby declare that you should immediately allow optometrists, provider type 31, to bill and be reimbursed for computerized cornea topography, CPT code 92025. Blue Cross allows it. I am trained to perform and analyze this test in optometry school. I need it to manage conditions like keratoconus, irregular astigmatism, pterygium, pellucid marginal degeneration, and transplanted cornea. All of these conditions I see in my practice.

Until now, I am willing to grant that the taxonomy/provider-type thing is an oversight- a snafu with the computer database. Now that this error has come to light, the only reason I can think that Utah Medicaid would continue in this erroneous policy is that the committee members making that decision are a bunch of anti-optometrist bigots. I don’t want to think that, so please reverse your policy as quickly as possible and allow optometrists to bill corneal topography.

Tags: doctors, Government, insurance, Medicaid, ophthalmologist, optometrist, patients, politics