The media folks ~ and, unfortunately, all the people who believe them ~ are mad at Bush for invading their privacy in his efforts to stop terrorism. Their main and only argument is that he did it without getting a warrant first, and this is unconstitutional, a breach of power, a horrible evil thing that makes Bush a really bad guy!
I realized something this morning, and I can't figure out why no one has pointed it out yet! How can Bush get a warrant to eavesdrop on someone if he doesn't have evidence that they're terrorists? But how can he have evidence that they're terrorists if he doesn't have a warrant to eavesdrop on them? It's impossible!
They want him to figure out who the terrorists are without spying on the people who aren't. It's like placing a hundred cups in front of him, asking him to pick the cup with the pea under it, and getting mad when he starts lifting all the cups.
If the government is forced to stop spying on people without warrants, here's what is going to happen:
Ahmed A calls his grandmother in Afghanistan to wish her a happy birthday. Ahmed B calls Osama to tell him they've secured the bombs for the oil refineries, or maybe the lethal mutation of the avian flu virus.
The government wants to listen to both calls, forget about the innocent grandma, and work on the attack. But it doesn't have enough outside evidence to get a warrant for either one. So, guess what? No one knows about the attack.
Hopefully, even if they're "forced" to stop, they'll keep doing it behind our back like they always have. Buf if not, take comfort, citizens, that even though the terrorists may kill you, the government won't know what you're doing.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Welcome, Commentors
Just thought I'd take a little time to thank my visitors and commenters to my blog...
Sanguine and Swedish Eskimo, I never said I didn't want to come to the Alps, and everything I read in the news makes America sound like less of a great place to live (see following post) and Switzerland a much better place. And I know a few tricks to keep out the yeti.
Finien, I don't know for sure who you are, but I do know you. Regardless, I appreciate your frequent visiting and wise, knowledgable comments. Thank you.
Aeropostalegirl, welcome! I'm excited to have attracted another returning reader! I will not pressure you into revealing your identity (as I usually keep my own a secret on this blog), but I am curious as to whether you know me, as my other commentors do, or whether you actually came across my blog somehow while traveling through cyberspace and liked it enough to stop and leave comments and even come back and leave more (you would be the first). Merry Christmas.
Edmond the Hun
Sanguine and Swedish Eskimo, I never said I didn't want to come to the Alps, and everything I read in the news makes America sound like less of a great place to live (see following post) and Switzerland a much better place. And I know a few tricks to keep out the yeti.
Finien, I don't know for sure who you are, but I do know you. Regardless, I appreciate your frequent visiting and wise, knowledgable comments. Thank you.
Aeropostalegirl, welcome! I'm excited to have attracted another returning reader! I will not pressure you into revealing your identity (as I usually keep my own a secret on this blog), but I am curious as to whether you know me, as my other commentors do, or whether you actually came across my blog somehow while traveling through cyberspace and liked it enough to stop and leave comments and even come back and leave more (you would be the first). Merry Christmas.
Edmond the Hun
Oh Boy! There's Hope for America!
Isn't it exciting to learn that cigarette and illicit drug use among teenagers have gone down in the last few years? Why, marijauna use dropped nearly a whole percent among seniors! Only 44% of them use it now!
Actually, while this report may mean teens are using less substances, it also may simply mean that less teens are admitting to using these substances.
What a joke...
Edmond the Hun
Actually, while this report may mean teens are using less substances, it also may simply mean that less teens are admitting to using these substances.
What a joke...
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Big Brother Is Watching You
Not really. He's only listening to some of you. And it's to protect you all from the bully across the street who wants to kill you. Confused?
Some people, including Democrats in Congress, are alarmed at the revelation that Bush authorized such things as tapping phone lines. Oh, the horror! The government is intruding on the common man's right to privacy! Oh, the humanity! It's 1984! It's Big Brother!
First of all, the government is not listening to everything you say to your boyfriend or grandma. A few thousand people working for the government simply do not have the capacity to listen to all the signals sent by three hundred million Americans every day. The best they could do was somehow record everything and computer search for phrases like "bomb" and "jihad" and "I hate Americans." In which case they're not listening in on your conversations.
And second of all, even if they are, hey, I'm not surprised. I've read enough thriller novels to freely assume the government does a lot more than we're aware of. But I don't really care. At least right now. I don't care if they intercept my cell phone signal and hear me asking my friend about Finien's or aeropostalegirl's identity if they're also intercepting cell phone signals of Mohammed asking Mohammed about which bridge they're going to blow up tomorrow.
The problem is that while the snooping of a good government is fine, it is not guaranteed that a future government would have the same noble intentions. And if a precedent is in place, then they can stop good guys from trying to stop their evil schemes.
It all comes down to the balance between freedom and security. To have more of one, you have to give up some of the other. It's hard to know where to draw the line.
Edmond the Hun
Some people, including Democrats in Congress, are alarmed at the revelation that Bush authorized such things as tapping phone lines. Oh, the horror! The government is intruding on the common man's right to privacy! Oh, the humanity! It's 1984! It's Big Brother!
First of all, the government is not listening to everything you say to your boyfriend or grandma. A few thousand people working for the government simply do not have the capacity to listen to all the signals sent by three hundred million Americans every day. The best they could do was somehow record everything and computer search for phrases like "bomb" and "jihad" and "I hate Americans." In which case they're not listening in on your conversations.
And second of all, even if they are, hey, I'm not surprised. I've read enough thriller novels to freely assume the government does a lot more than we're aware of. But I don't really care. At least right now. I don't care if they intercept my cell phone signal and hear me asking my friend about Finien's or aeropostalegirl's identity if they're also intercepting cell phone signals of Mohammed asking Mohammed about which bridge they're going to blow up tomorrow.
The problem is that while the snooping of a good government is fine, it is not guaranteed that a future government would have the same noble intentions. And if a precedent is in place, then they can stop good guys from trying to stop their evil schemes.
It all comes down to the balance between freedom and security. To have more of one, you have to give up some of the other. It's hard to know where to draw the line.
Edmond the Hun
Liam Neeson: A Gay Jedi Lion
I was intrigued and slightly disturbed today to learn that Star Wars figure Liam Neeson, the voice of Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia, also played a gay man, including a kissing scene, in last year's sexplicit non-hit Kinsey. An interesting role for someone who also represented the Christian Messiah...
Edmond the Hun
Edmond the Hun
Monday, December 12, 2005
I Stand Corrected
I have learned that the Honda commercial is actually singing "We wish you a happy Honda-day." It's still an implied change of words, but in this context it's even arguable that they're making fun of the "happy holidays" crowd.
So my explicit example is gone, but I still can't stand the liberals who claim that conservative are bunch of hooeys for complaining about an alleged war on Christmas.
Why can't we all just get along?
Edmond the Hun
So my explicit example is gone, but I still can't stand the liberals who claim that conservative are bunch of hooeys for complaining about an alleged war on Christmas.
Why can't we all just get along?
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Movie Review: Chronicles of Narnia 1 (4.5 of 5)
I left Narnia somewhat disappointed. But perhaps that was my fault. I almost forget it was a children's movie.
I'll just start out and clarify that this movie falls far short of the grandeur and epic-dom of Lord of the Rings. It lacks the rich and incredibly deep, complicated, and fascinating storyline. The PG violence, while not pathetic, lacks the dramatic intensity. The score, while professional, lacks the memorable themes and tunes, and just feels like classically expected suspense-strings and triumphant-brass.
But let's forget comparisons to that three-movie mega-epic with an obsessive director. After all, C. S. Lewis wrote the book to be a children's story. This one is great in its own right.
There are three requirements for transforming a beloved book into a magnificent movie. First, there must be a good story to tell. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is an excellent story, both allegorically and intrinsically. It's the forces of good vs. the reign of horrible evil, of course, yet there's also a little fun along the way. It has the escapist appeal of an imaginary world of talking creatures, yet it has the realist appeal of ordinary children coming to save the day.
Second, the story must be told correctly. Worries that Disney would corrupt the Christianity will be forgotten. Whether it's because some in charge appreciated the symbolism and vowed to preserve it, or because a post-Passion Hollywood was conscious that a correct telling would satisfy the religious masses and translate into more money, or both, Lion... follows the book, point by point, almost to an extreme, removing items only to speed things up and injecting alterations only to appropriately increase the suspense. (Exceptions are the one-thrust "battle" between Peter and Maugrim and the sometimes-wimpy climactic battle sequence, although as a whole it's probably the best ever in a PG movie.) The dialogue smartly declines to always have the actors quote the book, and there are no complaints here, as audiences will welcome the quotable quips and funny one-liners.
Third, the story must be presented wondrously. Or, in layman's terms, sweet special effects. Obviously, in the technology of 2005, nothing less is expected, and WETA and Co. do not disappoint. Whether it's the witch turning living creatures into stone, or the lion turning them back into living creatures, or especially the realistic-looking and enjoyable beavers, wolves, and centaurs, anyone who has seen the BBC versions will breathe a sigh of relief at the justice that has finally been done. (Indeed, I'm sure someone is already thanking God that there will never be a costumed mouse in Prince Caspian.)
Christians will be more than satisfied. Non-believers will enjoy the story for its own merit, and maybe even come to understand the story at the heart of Christianity a little better. Just don't forget that The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is, first and foremost, for better or for worse, a children's tale.
Edmond the Hun
I'll just start out and clarify that this movie falls far short of the grandeur and epic-dom of Lord of the Rings. It lacks the rich and incredibly deep, complicated, and fascinating storyline. The PG violence, while not pathetic, lacks the dramatic intensity. The score, while professional, lacks the memorable themes and tunes, and just feels like classically expected suspense-strings and triumphant-brass.
But let's forget comparisons to that three-movie mega-epic with an obsessive director. After all, C. S. Lewis wrote the book to be a children's story. This one is great in its own right.
There are three requirements for transforming a beloved book into a magnificent movie. First, there must be a good story to tell. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is an excellent story, both allegorically and intrinsically. It's the forces of good vs. the reign of horrible evil, of course, yet there's also a little fun along the way. It has the escapist appeal of an imaginary world of talking creatures, yet it has the realist appeal of ordinary children coming to save the day.
Second, the story must be told correctly. Worries that Disney would corrupt the Christianity will be forgotten. Whether it's because some in charge appreciated the symbolism and vowed to preserve it, or because a post-Passion Hollywood was conscious that a correct telling would satisfy the religious masses and translate into more money, or both, Lion... follows the book, point by point, almost to an extreme, removing items only to speed things up and injecting alterations only to appropriately increase the suspense. (Exceptions are the one-thrust "battle" between Peter and Maugrim and the sometimes-wimpy climactic battle sequence, although as a whole it's probably the best ever in a PG movie.) The dialogue smartly declines to always have the actors quote the book, and there are no complaints here, as audiences will welcome the quotable quips and funny one-liners.
Third, the story must be presented wondrously. Or, in layman's terms, sweet special effects. Obviously, in the technology of 2005, nothing less is expected, and WETA and Co. do not disappoint. Whether it's the witch turning living creatures into stone, or the lion turning them back into living creatures, or especially the realistic-looking and enjoyable beavers, wolves, and centaurs, anyone who has seen the BBC versions will breathe a sigh of relief at the justice that has finally been done. (Indeed, I'm sure someone is already thanking God that there will never be a costumed mouse in Prince Caspian.)
Christians will be more than satisfied. Non-believers will enjoy the story for its own merit, and maybe even come to understand the story at the heart of Christianity a little better. Just don't forget that The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is, first and foremost, for better or for worse, a children's tale.
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, December 10, 2005
We Wish You An Unoffending Phrase
I don't feel like getting into the Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas war that most conservatives get excited about every December. While I prefer "Merry Christmas," I suspect that to most people, all such phrases are now meaningless and simply things that people say because it's Christmastime.
Although I must admit I was quite surprised, yea, even shocked, to hear this blasphemous lyrical re-do on a Honda commercial:
Although I must admit I was quite surprised, yea, even shocked, to hear this blasphemous lyrical re-do on a Honda commercial:
We wish you a happy holiday
We wish you a happy holiday
We wish you a happy holiday
And a happy new year!
We wish you a happy holiday
We wish you a happy holiday
And a happy new year!
There's something wrong with that...
Edmond the Hun
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
I Don't Know Whether This is Funny or Sad...
A contaminated kiss kills teenager
By Phil Couvrette in Montreal, and agencies
www.smh.com.au
A TEENAGER with an extreme nut allergy has died after kissing her boyfriend hours after he had eaten a peanut-butter sandwich.
Christina Desforges went into anaphylactic shock after the kiss. She was given an adrenaline shot and taken to a hospital in Quebec City but died four days later from acute respiratory failure.
Doctors said the reaction to the minute traces of peanut on the boy's lips was the cause of Christina's death last week. Her boyfriend has not been named.
Dr Karen Sigman, a Canadian allergy expert, said: "If peanuts are still in the mouth, or on the tongue or on the lips, they can cause a reaction.
Besides the fact that 15-year-olds shouldn't be kissing anyway... Well, I'm at a loss for words.
Edmond the Hun
By Phil Couvrette in Montreal, and agencies
www.smh.com.au
A TEENAGER with an extreme nut allergy has died after kissing her boyfriend hours after he had eaten a peanut-butter sandwich.
Christina Desforges went into anaphylactic shock after the kiss. She was given an adrenaline shot and taken to a hospital in Quebec City but died four days later from acute respiratory failure.
Doctors said the reaction to the minute traces of peanut on the boy's lips was the cause of Christina's death last week. Her boyfriend has not been named.
Dr Karen Sigman, a Canadian allergy expert, said: "If peanuts are still in the mouth, or on the tongue or on the lips, they can cause a reaction.
Besides the fact that 15-year-olds shouldn't be kissing anyway... Well, I'm at a loss for words.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Why $3 A Gallon Was A Good Thing
Or, at least, an irritation with positive side effects
When gas shot up past $3 a gallon, people cried in horror. Now that things are back to relative normality, I look back and think it was a good thing.
It woke up Americans and gave them a foreshadowing of things to come. Europe is already used to the equivalent of four to five dollars a gallon, and they've adjusted with fuel-efficient cars and smart transportation systems and habits.
Things are only going to get worse. China is becoming more industrialized, and they are adding over 1,000 cars per day to their streets! (Thomas Friedman, The World Is Flat) Demand for oil is increasing exponentially, and supply is decreasing exponentially. Once demand overtakes supply, high prices will be a norm.
But this little high blip of September and October forced Americans to prepare a little better for this potentially impending energy crisis. We are buying more energy-efficient vehicles, and auto manufacturers are creating more energy-efficient vehicles. We're learning how to change our habits to adjust to higher prices. All of this helps ease demand and hold the supply.
It spurred on the search for and progress of alternative resources, which will be the only real way to solve an energy crisis and replace finite supplies of oil.
Oil will not last forever, but the panic brought about by these temporary price jumps will help us get ready for the time when they will be high and higher, indefinitely.
Edomdnd the Hun
When gas shot up past $3 a gallon, people cried in horror. Now that things are back to relative normality, I look back and think it was a good thing.
It woke up Americans and gave them a foreshadowing of things to come. Europe is already used to the equivalent of four to five dollars a gallon, and they've adjusted with fuel-efficient cars and smart transportation systems and habits.
Things are only going to get worse. China is becoming more industrialized, and they are adding over 1,000 cars per day to their streets! (Thomas Friedman, The World Is Flat) Demand for oil is increasing exponentially, and supply is decreasing exponentially. Once demand overtakes supply, high prices will be a norm.
But this little high blip of September and October forced Americans to prepare a little better for this potentially impending energy crisis. We are buying more energy-efficient vehicles, and auto manufacturers are creating more energy-efficient vehicles. We're learning how to change our habits to adjust to higher prices. All of this helps ease demand and hold the supply.
It spurred on the search for and progress of alternative resources, which will be the only real way to solve an energy crisis and replace finite supplies of oil.
Oil will not last forever, but the panic brought about by these temporary price jumps will help us get ready for the time when they will be high and higher, indefinitely.
Edomdnd the Hun
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Woman For President? It May Be Possible...
Two weeks later, and the results are in. They are only mildly surprising.
The mostly teenage/20's Christian forum was pretty split, with 12 votes yes and 14 votes no.
No: Women are frowned upon by other countries... God created woman as a helper, not leader.
Yes: We have a woman secretary of state, why not president?... I can't think of any harm... It doesn't matter as long as they're qualified...
Best Joke (by a woman): She'd plunge the country into war every 28 days or so.
Best Question (also by a woman): How could her husband have any leadership role at home when his wife is his authority?
General Consensus: Some would, some wouldn't, some object Biblically, some support Biblically.
The gasbuddy forum was almost entirely yes:
Yes: As long as she has the best overall interest in that of the United States... It's sad that people can't realize gender does not make a difference... Women have succeeded as CEO's and Executive Directors... It's depressing that people even ask this question... I think it's simply a matter of merit and qualification, not gender...
No: (no arguments or reasons, just statements like, "No." "Not in a million years!")
General Consensus: A woman president is just as justified as a man president, although it's unlikely to happen in the next election.
The science forum was also overwhelmingly yes:
Yes: Sure, but not as a political ploy... Aperson's gender is no guide to their abilities... Who they are and what they stand for are paramount... We had a female Prime Minister... Of course...
No: (No objections)
General Consensus: There is no difference between a man and woman regarding their ability to lead, although a woman candidate could become a sexist icon for people voting either way.
OVERALL RESULTS: While the younger Christians are split, most people have no problem at all with a woman president, providing she is qualified, although no one is anticipating it happening in the next few years. Therefore, it appears that it would be too hasty to conclude already that neither Hillary or Condi stand a chance at all, although I still am doubtful.
Note an argument in Freakonomics regarding an election some time ago involving a black candidate. Pre-election polls indicated the black man would win by a large margin, but he barely squeezed a victory. This implies that some people who objected to a black leader did not want to appear racist in the polls and said that they would vote for him, but did not.
It is possible that Americans are ready for a woman president, and it is equally possible that some say they are because they don't want to appear sexist, or the ones that don't want a woman president simply aren't saying anything. And there's no way to poll for that.
Edmond the Hun
The mostly teenage/20's Christian forum was pretty split, with 12 votes yes and 14 votes no.
No: Women are frowned upon by other countries... God created woman as a helper, not leader.
Yes: We have a woman secretary of state, why not president?... I can't think of any harm... It doesn't matter as long as they're qualified...
Best Joke (by a woman): She'd plunge the country into war every 28 days or so.
Best Question (also by a woman): How could her husband have any leadership role at home when his wife is his authority?
General Consensus: Some would, some wouldn't, some object Biblically, some support Biblically.
The gasbuddy forum was almost entirely yes:
Yes: As long as she has the best overall interest in that of the United States... It's sad that people can't realize gender does not make a difference... Women have succeeded as CEO's and Executive Directors... It's depressing that people even ask this question... I think it's simply a matter of merit and qualification, not gender...
No: (no arguments or reasons, just statements like, "No." "Not in a million years!")
General Consensus: A woman president is just as justified as a man president, although it's unlikely to happen in the next election.
The science forum was also overwhelmingly yes:
Yes: Sure, but not as a political ploy... Aperson's gender is no guide to their abilities... Who they are and what they stand for are paramount... We had a female Prime Minister... Of course...
No: (No objections)
General Consensus: There is no difference between a man and woman regarding their ability to lead, although a woman candidate could become a sexist icon for people voting either way.
OVERALL RESULTS: While the younger Christians are split, most people have no problem at all with a woman president, providing she is qualified, although no one is anticipating it happening in the next few years. Therefore, it appears that it would be too hasty to conclude already that neither Hillary or Condi stand a chance at all, although I still am doubtful.
Note an argument in Freakonomics regarding an election some time ago involving a black candidate. Pre-election polls indicated the black man would win by a large margin, but he barely squeezed a victory. This implies that some people who objected to a black leader did not want to appear racist in the polls and said that they would vote for him, but did not.
It is possible that Americans are ready for a woman president, and it is equally possible that some say they are because they don't want to appear sexist, or the ones that don't want a woman president simply aren't saying anything. And there's no way to poll for that.
Edmond the Hun
Economy Update: November '05
As gas prices are under $2.29, the movies produce a movie that makes over $30 million for the first time since mid-September. However, it was a sequel to an alleged hit, and it was a horror flick on the weekend before Halloween, so this might have been expected.
It will be impossible to continue to judge the economy and the spending money of Americans based on the money movies make, because even though gas prices are "down," heating prices are going up, and there are a bunch of hits scheduled to release through the rest of the year, including Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia, and King Kong, which will be expected to gross big numbers. Too many factors to make justified conclusions.
However, there are two things to watch concering the economy in the next two months. First, people are going to start buying Christmas presents, and we'll see if they have less money to spend than usual. Second, yesterday marked the start of charging for those higher natural gas prices for heating your home, and we'll see if they will really be 25%-45% higher than last year. That could eat up wallets faster than gas prices.
So anyways, I'll keep you updated with what little I know. I'll keep looking for better economic data than movie numbers. But I still don't think we need to panic.
Edmond the Hun
It will be impossible to continue to judge the economy and the spending money of Americans based on the money movies make, because even though gas prices are "down," heating prices are going up, and there are a bunch of hits scheduled to release through the rest of the year, including Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia, and King Kong, which will be expected to gross big numbers. Too many factors to make justified conclusions.
However, there are two things to watch concering the economy in the next two months. First, people are going to start buying Christmas presents, and we'll see if they have less money to spend than usual. Second, yesterday marked the start of charging for those higher natural gas prices for heating your home, and we'll see if they will really be 25%-45% higher than last year. That could eat up wallets faster than gas prices.
So anyways, I'll keep you updated with what little I know. I'll keep looking for better economic data than movie numbers. But I still don't think we need to panic.
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Supreme Court Nominee: Brilliant! (i think)
Bush has now nominated some guy named Samuel Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court. His incredible track record makes him the most qualified candidate of the last seventy years. I think this is a brilliant move by Bush and Co. to either increase the conservative-ness of the Supreme Court, or expose the Democrat's liberal agenda, or both.
Here's why. Harriet Miers was criticized because she had no experience. In response, Bush nominates a guy who is incredibly experienced. (He also happens to be incredibly conservative.)
If Bush had nominated Alito from the start, his experience wouldn't have been that much of an issue, and it wouldn't have been an obvious positive factor. The Dems would have tried to find some objection based on his views, and would have had a decent chance of succeeding.
But since Alito is a post-Miers nominee, everyone looks at his experience and thinks, Hey, what a great choice! The only way the Dems can object is to make it obvious that they don't like his conservative-ness, which is no real reason at all.
Just as gas for $2.26 feels a lot cheaper after $2.99, an experienced nominee looks a lot better and more qualified after an unexperienced one. Thanks to this chain of events, there is now a good chance that this conservative president will increase the conservative-ness of the Court.
Brilliant!
Edmond the Hun
Here's why. Harriet Miers was criticized because she had no experience. In response, Bush nominates a guy who is incredibly experienced. (He also happens to be incredibly conservative.)
If Bush had nominated Alito from the start, his experience wouldn't have been that much of an issue, and it wouldn't have been an obvious positive factor. The Dems would have tried to find some objection based on his views, and would have had a decent chance of succeeding.
But since Alito is a post-Miers nominee, everyone looks at his experience and thinks, Hey, what a great choice! The only way the Dems can object is to make it obvious that they don't like his conservative-ness, which is no real reason at all.
Just as gas for $2.26 feels a lot cheaper after $2.99, an experienced nominee looks a lot better and more qualified after an unexperienced one. Thanks to this chain of events, there is now a good chance that this conservative president will increase the conservative-ness of the Court.
Brilliant!
Edmond the Hun
Monday, October 31, 2005
Anti-Bush Media, Continued
So some guy in the Bush administration was indicted Friday.
Today's Monday, right?
Then why are there still 4,000 articles about it? Just look at some of these headlines:
"Democrat leader: Rove should resign, Bush and Cheney apologize"..."Democrats after Rove's job"..."President should apologize, change staff, some say"..."Rove should be fired, spy’s husband says"..."Reid Says Rove Should Resign"..."Cheney emerges as key figure in leak"... and that's just from the last hour.
Google News counts about 3,950 related articles. Currently, Rosa Park stuff and Supreme Court nominee stuff are each around 2,000, and nothing else is even close.
Basically, there's about twice as many news articles about the latest problems of the Bush administration than anything else in the news! And this is three days after it happened!
And who still says the media is not biased?
Edmond the Hun
Today's Monday, right?
Then why are there still 4,000 articles about it? Just look at some of these headlines:
"Democrat leader: Rove should resign, Bush and Cheney apologize"..."Democrats after Rove's job"..."President should apologize, change staff, some say"..."Rove should be fired, spy’s husband says"..."Reid Says Rove Should Resign"..."Cheney emerges as key figure in leak"... and that's just from the last hour.
Google News counts about 3,950 related articles. Currently, Rosa Park stuff and Supreme Court nominee stuff are each around 2,000, and nothing else is even close.
Basically, there's about twice as many news articles about the latest problems of the Bush administration than anything else in the news! And this is three days after it happened!
And who still says the media is not biased?
Edmond the Hun
Friday, October 28, 2005
News Flash: It's Racist to Compliment Black People!
This is stupid.
Air Force Acadmey Coach Fisher DeBerry, after losing a game, remarked that the other team had more black people, and that in general, blacks are faster runners than whites. He got attacked for these statements, which have been dubbed as "racist remarks," and he had to apologize!
The guy said the other team "had a lot more Afro-American players than we did and they ran a lot faster than we did. It just seems to me to be that way. Afro-American kids can run very well. That doesn't mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can't run, but it's very obvious to me that they run extremely well."
Hey, it's the truth! Obviously, you can't over-generalize, and statements won't be true in every situation, but, in general, these are true statements. Just look at the 100-meter dash in the Olympics. The top male times are always faster than the top female times, and the top finishers for either gender are almost always black.
That's just the way God made us. Males in top form are stronger and more athletic than females in top form, and it's the same for blacks to whites. There's nothing racist or sexist about it; that's just established fact.
By calling DeBerry a racist, the criticizers are actually admitting racism of their own. The only way someone could have a problem with that statement is if they inferred that there was some sort of shame in the fact that the fastest blacks are faster than the fastest whites. Now that's racist. But DeBerry's comments were not.
We have just discovered that it is now racist to compliment black people.
Edmond the Hun
(Source: allsports.com)
Air Force Acadmey Coach Fisher DeBerry, after losing a game, remarked that the other team had more black people, and that in general, blacks are faster runners than whites. He got attacked for these statements, which have been dubbed as "racist remarks," and he had to apologize!
The guy said the other team "had a lot more Afro-American players than we did and they ran a lot faster than we did. It just seems to me to be that way. Afro-American kids can run very well. That doesn't mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can't run, but it's very obvious to me that they run extremely well."
Hey, it's the truth! Obviously, you can't over-generalize, and statements won't be true in every situation, but, in general, these are true statements. Just look at the 100-meter dash in the Olympics. The top male times are always faster than the top female times, and the top finishers for either gender are almost always black.
That's just the way God made us. Males in top form are stronger and more athletic than females in top form, and it's the same for blacks to whites. There's nothing racist or sexist about it; that's just established fact.
By calling DeBerry a racist, the criticizers are actually admitting racism of their own. The only way someone could have a problem with that statement is if they inferred that there was some sort of shame in the fact that the fastest blacks are faster than the fastest whites. Now that's racist. But DeBerry's comments were not.
We have just discovered that it is now racist to compliment black people.
Edmond the Hun
(Source: allsports.com)
Let's Wipe Israel Off the Map, Act 2005
It's like a horrible play.
WORLD: Come on, Israel, give up some of your land to the Palestinians, and you'll have peace.
ISRAEL: I doubt it.
WORLD: Come on, just do it. Peace! Peace!
CONSERVATIVE MEDIA/BLOGGERS: This is the stupidest idea in the world. Radical Muslims will only be happy when Israel is wiped off the map. It won't work at all.
WORLD: Did you hear something? Come on, Israel, give up land! Give up land! Peace! Peace!
ISRAEL: Well, OK, we'll do it.
[Israel gives up some land.]
RADICAL MUSLIMS: Yay, we have land! Now let's go attack some Israelis!
IRAN PRESIDENT: Israel must be wiped off the map! (actual quote)
ISRAEL: Here we go again...
WORLD: Hmm... I wonder what happened to the peace!
CONSERVATIVE MEDIA/BLOGGERS: Hate to say I told you so, but the world's not listening anyway...
You know there's something wrong with the world when a coach can't compliment black people without getting attacked and mutilated (allsports.com) while an Islamist president can call for the extermination of Israel and stand by his comments without apology.
WORLD: Come on, Israel, give up some of your land to the Palestinians, and you'll have peace.
ISRAEL: I doubt it.
WORLD: Come on, just do it. Peace! Peace!
CONSERVATIVE MEDIA/BLOGGERS: This is the stupidest idea in the world. Radical Muslims will only be happy when Israel is wiped off the map. It won't work at all.
WORLD: Did you hear something? Come on, Israel, give up land! Give up land! Peace! Peace!
ISRAEL: Well, OK, we'll do it.
[Israel gives up some land.]
RADICAL MUSLIMS: Yay, we have land! Now let's go attack some Israelis!
IRAN PRESIDENT: Israel must be wiped off the map! (actual quote)
ISRAEL: Here we go again...
WORLD: Hmm... I wonder what happened to the peace!
CONSERVATIVE MEDIA/BLOGGERS: Hate to say I told you so, but the world's not listening anyway...
You know there's something wrong with the world when a coach can't compliment black people without getting attacked and mutilated (allsports.com) while an Islamist president can call for the extermination of Israel and stand by his comments without apology.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Green Bay Packers Off to Bad Start
Six games into the 2005 season, the Green Bay Packers, forever an excellent or at least decent team run by consecutive-game-record-holding Brett Favre, are off to a 1-5 start, their worst in years. On a positive note, maybe this will help lighten up their 68,000-person waiting list for season tickets...
Edmond the Hun
Edmond the Hun
Monday, October 24, 2005
Open-Sourcing: Beats Microsoft to the Punch
Most of you probably don't know what open-sourcing is. It's where lots of programmers and computer geeks make programs, openly revealing the source code to promote collaboration and improvement, simply because they believe information and products should be free and open to everyone (and also because many of them hate Microsoft, which charges hundreds of dollars for its closed-source software).
OpenOffice.org has had a free downloadable software called OpenOffice.org 1.0 for some time now. It is basically a non-brandname copycat of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, as well as a few other less-popular programs. But even though it's non-brandname and doesn't cost $100 or more, Writer is basically the same thing as Word, is completely compatible with Word documents, and even supposedly contains extra features (I cannot confirm this with specific details because some of the features that I thought "extra" are actually already on the latest version of Word, which I do not own).
So, what's the point?
OpenOffice.org has just released version 2.0. I'm not sure all what this means, but when software goes to a new number, it's basically a full and complete upgrade (as opposed to going from 1.0 to 1.1, which might just fix a few bugs or add a couple components).
What interests me is the timing. Microsoft has promised to fully upgrade its Office Suite along with its new operating system Vista, due next year. You might expect OpenOffice to wait for this to come out to see what the new software has to offer, so they can copy it and make it available for free.
Instead, they have come up with things by themselves, offering new and upgraded features without waiting to see what Microsoft will offer. This shows confidence and a desire to beat Microsoft to the punch. In fact, if 2.0 contains some truly new and useful features (I have yet to download it with my feeble dial-up connection), Microsoft may end up being the one incorporating some of OpenOffice's features! There's irony for you!
Microsoft still does not fear competition from OpenOffice, largely because most people have still never heard of it. But what appeals to me is the same quality without the hundred-dollar price tag. By deciding to release a new version before Microsoft releases theirs, OpenOffice is proving that they are not just providing a free copycat of expensive products. They are taking open-sourcing to a new paradigm by taking an initiatve of their own.
Edmond the Hun
OpenOffice.org has had a free downloadable software called OpenOffice.org 1.0 for some time now. It is basically a non-brandname copycat of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, as well as a few other less-popular programs. But even though it's non-brandname and doesn't cost $100 or more, Writer is basically the same thing as Word, is completely compatible with Word documents, and even supposedly contains extra features (I cannot confirm this with specific details because some of the features that I thought "extra" are actually already on the latest version of Word, which I do not own).
So, what's the point?
OpenOffice.org has just released version 2.0. I'm not sure all what this means, but when software goes to a new number, it's basically a full and complete upgrade (as opposed to going from 1.0 to 1.1, which might just fix a few bugs or add a couple components).
What interests me is the timing. Microsoft has promised to fully upgrade its Office Suite along with its new operating system Vista, due next year. You might expect OpenOffice to wait for this to come out to see what the new software has to offer, so they can copy it and make it available for free.
Instead, they have come up with things by themselves, offering new and upgraded features without waiting to see what Microsoft will offer. This shows confidence and a desire to beat Microsoft to the punch. In fact, if 2.0 contains some truly new and useful features (I have yet to download it with my feeble dial-up connection), Microsoft may end up being the one incorporating some of OpenOffice's features! There's irony for you!
Microsoft still does not fear competition from OpenOffice, largely because most people have still never heard of it. But what appeals to me is the same quality without the hundred-dollar price tag. By deciding to release a new version before Microsoft releases theirs, OpenOffice is proving that they are not just providing a free copycat of expensive products. They are taking open-sourcing to a new paradigm by taking an initiatve of their own.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Controversy: Prisoner Abortion?
Here's the latest conervative/liberal controversy: Anonymous Lady is in jail and wants to get an abortion. Does she have the right to get one, to have transportation provided to take her to an abortion clinic, payed by (who else) taxpayers?
Well, the Supreme Court ruled that she has that right. Liberals contend that of course it's her right, how dare the Republican government try to control her reproductive choices! Conservatives contend that besides the fact that abortion is murder, prisoners aren't allowed to vote or bear arms, so why should they be allowed to get an abortion?
I don't have much to offer besides the already-established conervative viewpoint. What are the liberals gonna try to argue next? "Hey, this guy in jail wants a gun, how dare you Republicans try to control his weapons choices!" But at the same time, you can't say prisoners are deprived of all rights (food and shelter, for instance).
So when a line has to be drawn, we have to let the Supreme Court draw it, instead of the people or the people-elected Congress. Once again, I support an amendment that would send these kinds of cases to Congress or to the people to draw up a law defining prisoner's rights. Until then, the Supreme Court will continue to make "laws" without checks and balances.
I did find it ironic, though, that the Supreme Court decided that a woman, who was put in prison to restrict her from committing further crimes, is now allowed to leave prison to commit another crime.
Edmond the Hun
Well, the Supreme Court ruled that she has that right. Liberals contend that of course it's her right, how dare the Republican government try to control her reproductive choices! Conservatives contend that besides the fact that abortion is murder, prisoners aren't allowed to vote or bear arms, so why should they be allowed to get an abortion?
I don't have much to offer besides the already-established conervative viewpoint. What are the liberals gonna try to argue next? "Hey, this guy in jail wants a gun, how dare you Republicans try to control his weapons choices!" But at the same time, you can't say prisoners are deprived of all rights (food and shelter, for instance).
So when a line has to be drawn, we have to let the Supreme Court draw it, instead of the people or the people-elected Congress. Once again, I support an amendment that would send these kinds of cases to Congress or to the people to draw up a law defining prisoner's rights. Until then, the Supreme Court will continue to make "laws" without checks and balances.
I did find it ironic, though, that the Supreme Court decided that a woman, who was put in prison to restrict her from committing further crimes, is now allowed to leave prison to commit another crime.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Women & Election 2008
A book came out earlier this year called like "The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Goto Become President." And now there's a book out called "Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race."
Umm... isn't the election still over three years away? Doesn't anyone know that Condoleeza Rice doesn't even want to run for president? And who said Hillary could even get the nomination from her own party?
Wouldn't it be hilarious if there's enough people out there who don't even want to vote for a woman president, whether because they believe God doesn't want women in charge, or because women aren't suited to be in charge, or because other countries wouldn't appreciate or respect a woman in charge, or for whatever other reason... if there's enough of them, neither of them stands a chance to begin with!
So I've started a thread in three different forums from websites that target three different demographics (teenage and young adult Christians, scientists, and gasoline price watchers), asking the question and seeing what results I get:
Should a woman be president?
We'll see how the results look in a couple weeks...
Umm... isn't the election still over three years away? Doesn't anyone know that Condoleeza Rice doesn't even want to run for president? And who said Hillary could even get the nomination from her own party?
Wouldn't it be hilarious if there's enough people out there who don't even want to vote for a woman president, whether because they believe God doesn't want women in charge, or because women aren't suited to be in charge, or because other countries wouldn't appreciate or respect a woman in charge, or for whatever other reason... if there's enough of them, neither of them stands a chance to begin with!
So I've started a thread in three different forums from websites that target three different demographics (teenage and young adult Christians, scientists, and gasoline price watchers), asking the question and seeing what results I get:
Should a woman be president?
We'll see how the results look in a couple weeks...
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Book Review: Freakonomics (4 of 5)
Freakonomics is an interesting book, especially for anyone who likes numbers. There is no specific purpose, as the book itself admits, except maybe to challenge you not to accept at face value statistics that politicians and the media throw out at you, and to maybe dig a little deeper for the truth. Problem is, I already know not to always accept these statistics, and unless you are an economist who has access to large pools of data from governments, schools, and sumo wrestlers, you really don't have a way to check the numbers you are given.
That said, it's still a very interesting book. Levitt asks random unasked questions and pores over lots of data to find unexpected correlations. While he admits that a correlation between two things cannot determine why, he still concludes or strongly encourages us about the why's. Abortion in the 1970's caused a crime drop in the 1990's. Incompetent school teachers change their students' test answers to correct ones so No Child will get Left Behind and they won't look bad. Real estate agents don't work their hardest at selling your home because the difference between a $300,000 and a $310,000 sale is only an extra $150 in commission for them.
It's all good and interesting, except that as the book progresses, the Stevens offer us less examples of the actual data and resort to simply telling us that when this happened, this tended to happen. They make very convincing arguments, except if we are to take their own advice, we cannot accept the correlations they give us. States with higher abortion rates in the 1970's tended to experience higher crime drops in the 1990's. OK. Was that true for every single high-abortion-rate state or just most of them? Obviously, they can't give us all the raw data for all of their examples, because then the book would be several hundred boring pages of numbers. Although it is unavoidable, this by nature lessens the credibility of his conclusions.
For the most part, however, Freakonomics is a smart book that finds interesting and enlightening patterns in unexpected places. And they even do a good job of attempting to explain and find causes for these patterns. I only wish I had that kind of access to that kind of data...
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Movie Review: Elizabethtown (3 of 5)
Elizabethtown is a chick flick. In one sense, they're all the same. In another sense, they're all slightly different, and some things work, and some things really do not.
Most chick flicks do not start out with the guy losing his company a billion dollars. This has potential. Most chick flicks also do not revolve around the death of the guy's dad, and the ensuing family relations and squabbles and funerals and memorial services. And now we know why. It's just kind of an awkward clash ~ not only the death with the romance but the comic relief with with death ~ you're not always sure whether you're supposed to be sad or laughing.
The romance is much more entertaining, and it's too bad it didn't get more focus. Kirsten Dunst is hilarious as a too-forward slightly-crazy flight attendant with a halfway-consistent Southern accent. Orlando Bloom is also fun to watch in a rare swordless role, espeically in some animated moments (There's nothing quite like watching this sword- and bow-wielding elf/pirate erupt in frustration and bang his horn after missing an exit and getting lost by a cornfield).
Elizabethtown is also smartly modern. Cell phones are a major part of their relationship. Crowe maximizes the potentials of cell phone multi-tasking to humourous effect, as they talk for hours. The relationship is also refreshingly non-physical, for a large part, at least. Yes, they make out eventually, but for a time just get to know each other and even refrain from a kiss at one point, as Dunst says, "Didn't it feel better when we didn't do something impulsive?"
Overall, the move is entertaining, but the death/family subplot is too much of a distraction, and when the travel-deprived Bloom leaves town and goes on a "road trip" specifically designed for him by Dunst, complete with a map/scrapbook/mix CDs package that is sweet (in both senses of the word), you find yourself wishing the movie had more of this sort of thing. The mini bits of language and sexual references are also a distraction, enhanced by the fact that the rest of the movie is laregly void of them (For example, I would not criticize I, Robot for the language so much because it's an action movie with language throughout. Here, it's a mostly innocent romance with a few random words thrown in.)
Elizabethtown, then, is an anomaly. It's a typical chick flick with several twists and differences, some funny and some distracting. It's up to you. Not that September/October 2005 have had much else to offer...
Edmond the Hun
Most chick flicks do not start out with the guy losing his company a billion dollars. This has potential. Most chick flicks also do not revolve around the death of the guy's dad, and the ensuing family relations and squabbles and funerals and memorial services. And now we know why. It's just kind of an awkward clash ~ not only the death with the romance but the comic relief with with death ~ you're not always sure whether you're supposed to be sad or laughing.
The romance is much more entertaining, and it's too bad it didn't get more focus. Kirsten Dunst is hilarious as a too-forward slightly-crazy flight attendant with a halfway-consistent Southern accent. Orlando Bloom is also fun to watch in a rare swordless role, espeically in some animated moments (There's nothing quite like watching this sword- and bow-wielding elf/pirate erupt in frustration and bang his horn after missing an exit and getting lost by a cornfield).
Elizabethtown is also smartly modern. Cell phones are a major part of their relationship. Crowe maximizes the potentials of cell phone multi-tasking to humourous effect, as they talk for hours. The relationship is also refreshingly non-physical, for a large part, at least. Yes, they make out eventually, but for a time just get to know each other and even refrain from a kiss at one point, as Dunst says, "Didn't it feel better when we didn't do something impulsive?"
Overall, the move is entertaining, but the death/family subplot is too much of a distraction, and when the travel-deprived Bloom leaves town and goes on a "road trip" specifically designed for him by Dunst, complete with a map/scrapbook/mix CDs package that is sweet (in both senses of the word), you find yourself wishing the movie had more of this sort of thing. The mini bits of language and sexual references are also a distraction, enhanced by the fact that the rest of the movie is laregly void of them (For example, I would not criticize I, Robot for the language so much because it's an action movie with language throughout. Here, it's a mostly innocent romance with a few random words thrown in.)
Elizabethtown, then, is an anomaly. It's a typical chick flick with several twists and differences, some funny and some distracting. It's up to you. Not that September/October 2005 have had much else to offer...
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Economy, continued
An anonymous "Fresh Eavesdropper" left an insightful and knowledgable comment on my previous economic-related post. The trickle-down related information was especially insightful. (Although it doesn't help me decide how likely the economy will crash this Christmas if people can't and don't spend enough on stuff).
While I recognize that movies are a far from ideal measure of the status of the economy and the people's amount of spending money, it is the only set for which I have readily available data (via www.boxofficemojo.com). Book publishers release rankings only, not numbers. And I simply don't know where to find other useful numbers.
Yet we have now had three weekends in a row without a $20-million grossing movie. Can this be attributed solely to a lack of good movies?
Edmond the Hun
While I recognize that movies are a far from ideal measure of the status of the economy and the people's amount of spending money, it is the only set for which I have readily available data (via www.boxofficemojo.com). Book publishers release rankings only, not numbers. And I simply don't know where to find other useful numbers.
Yet we have now had three weekends in a row without a $20-million grossing movie. Can this be attributed solely to a lack of good movies?
Edmond the Hun
Movies: Elizabethtown
Saw it today. Expect a full review later this week. Probably a 3 of 5.
Pros: Good overall production and presentation, especially regarding the romance element. Modern and smart (cell phones are a major part of the relationship, for example), yet unmodernly unphyscial (yes, they make out eventually, but for a large part simply get to know each other). Plenty of humourous hilarious moments and catch phrases/dialogue.
Cons: The other major element, regarding the death of Orlando's father, subsequent relations with southern country-type family, the memorial service, etc, clashes awkwardly with the romance element, which is much more entertaining. Kirsten's southern accent is wonderfully amusing, except she's not consistent with it. And the brief language and sexual references are random, standing out awkwardly and unnecessarily because the rest of the movie is so devoid of them.
Edmond the Hun
Pros: Good overall production and presentation, especially regarding the romance element. Modern and smart (cell phones are a major part of the relationship, for example), yet unmodernly unphyscial (yes, they make out eventually, but for a large part simply get to know each other). Plenty of humourous hilarious moments and catch phrases/dialogue.
Cons: The other major element, regarding the death of Orlando's father, subsequent relations with southern country-type family, the memorial service, etc, clashes awkwardly with the romance element, which is much more entertaining. Kirsten's southern accent is wonderfully amusing, except she's not consistent with it. And the brief language and sexual references are random, standing out awkwardly and unnecessarily because the rest of the movie is so devoid of them.
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
The Economy: Don't Panic (yet)
I love numbers, perhaps too much for my own good. I concluded that an analysis of the numbers alone does not justify accusing Reggie Sanders of taking steroids, even though from 2000 to 2001 he went from 11 home runs to 33 home runs, and even though he hit as many home runs in 2005 as 2004 in only half as many at-bats. If he started steroids in 2001 why didn't he hit as well in 2004 as 2005? Or, if he started steroids in 2005, why the jump between 2000 and 2001? Without outside evidence, it's far more logical to chalk it up to natural fluctuation and inconsistency.
But we're getting off topic. I was speculating last week about gas prices and what it would do to the economy. But I'm not too worried.
Take the movies, for example. It is true that two weekends ago, the top movie only grossed $15 million, the first under-$20 mil this year. And it's true that last weekend's top movie only grossed $16 million. Two in a row!
But you could also argue that none of the recent movies have had anything really exciting to offer and attract large movie crowds, certainly a viable theory. And last weekend had five opening movies in the top seven, which means there were a bunch of new movies competing for money, all of them making just enough to not allow one of them to make a whole bunch.
It's true that the last two weekends have made less money than the same weekends of 2003 and 2004. But it's also true that the last weekend made more money than the previous six weekends.
It's all about which numbers you look at, and the general result is: While money-making among movies does seem to be slightly down, it cannot single-handedly be attributed to gas prices, and even if it could, the numbers aren't different enough to cause alarm.
Or take fast food. I've seen several difference statistics that between 10-30% of people have altered their fast food habits, or semi-formal dining habits, or are clipping more coupons, etc, because of higher gas prices. In one sense, that's a decent percent. But in another sense, it's also very low. The majority of people aren't changing how they spend their money because of higher gas prices! At McDonald's, where I work, we're still plenty busy. Sure, the last two days were pretty slow, but that's just normal fluctuation. At a McTeacher night last week, the gas station across the street said $2.99, and we were packed nonstop for three hours.
The bottom line: Don't panic. The economy's not crumbling yet. (But don't hold your breath for holiday sales) I'll keep analyzing those numbers that none of you probably even care about...
Edmond the Hun
But we're getting off topic. I was speculating last week about gas prices and what it would do to the economy. But I'm not too worried.
Take the movies, for example. It is true that two weekends ago, the top movie only grossed $15 million, the first under-$20 mil this year. And it's true that last weekend's top movie only grossed $16 million. Two in a row!
But you could also argue that none of the recent movies have had anything really exciting to offer and attract large movie crowds, certainly a viable theory. And last weekend had five opening movies in the top seven, which means there were a bunch of new movies competing for money, all of them making just enough to not allow one of them to make a whole bunch.
It's true that the last two weekends have made less money than the same weekends of 2003 and 2004. But it's also true that the last weekend made more money than the previous six weekends.
It's all about which numbers you look at, and the general result is: While money-making among movies does seem to be slightly down, it cannot single-handedly be attributed to gas prices, and even if it could, the numbers aren't different enough to cause alarm.
Or take fast food. I've seen several difference statistics that between 10-30% of people have altered their fast food habits, or semi-formal dining habits, or are clipping more coupons, etc, because of higher gas prices. In one sense, that's a decent percent. But in another sense, it's also very low. The majority of people aren't changing how they spend their money because of higher gas prices! At McDonald's, where I work, we're still plenty busy. Sure, the last two days were pretty slow, but that's just normal fluctuation. At a McTeacher night last week, the gas station across the street said $2.99, and we were packed nonstop for three hours.
The bottom line: Don't panic. The economy's not crumbling yet. (But don't hold your breath for holiday sales) I'll keep analyzing those numbers that none of you probably even care about...
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Ramblings: Bagels, Barnes, and Baseball
Got up at 7:30, since I had to work at nine. Read the paper. Surprised to see nothing about Bush's remarks that we've foiled twelve terrorist plots since 9/11, including five for our soil. But why would the media report something that's both positive AND pro-Bush?
Worked six hours, with a break. 'Twas very busy. Only second time doing a breakfast shift, since I'm not really "available" during those hours, and only work then when I'm needed. Managers were again impressed with my quick grasping of the concepts of toasting bagels and heating biscuits and hotcakes and whatnot. I guess they don't expect employees to do what they're told and remember it when they learn something new. But it means they like me more, and it's always good to have your managers like you. It's even better to have them like you because you're a good and hard worker. I think I'm due for a raise in the near future...
Called my girlfriend to see about checking out the new Barnes and Nobles with her tomorrow, or finish watching The Prince of Egypt, which has an amazing musical score. Speaking of which, I need to write more music for the school's play tomorrow, too. I've got a bunch of various ditties floating around that need to be strapped down and molded, but I'm still clueless about the big fight scene.
Played some football with some friends from my former youth group and their friends. Wide receiver, missed some embarrassingly easy grabs since I lack skills, but still caught an interception for a touchdown that finished the first game, and received two more in the second game. Haven't exercised much lately besides sporadic weightlifting, and I was mildly worn out.
Cardinals play tonight after 10. Commissioner Bud Selig apologized to fans for the late start, saying it was unavoidable due to other baseball and football games scheduled on the same day. Makes him look good that he even bothered to apologize, though, right? Until you read in the paper that Kit Bond noted that when a 10 o'clock playoff game occurred a few years ago, he promised "no more 10 o'clock games." And now he broke his promise. Sure, it was unavoidable, but now he gets scolded because of his previous comments.
A tip to my friend who wants to become president (and any other hopefuls out there): When you make promises, only promise to try. Never say that you will make something happen, or that you will not let something happen again. Because the Murphy demons will make sure the opposite comes true, and the media will never forget it. Poor Bud.
Edmond the Hun
Worked six hours, with a break. 'Twas very busy. Only second time doing a breakfast shift, since I'm not really "available" during those hours, and only work then when I'm needed. Managers were again impressed with my quick grasping of the concepts of toasting bagels and heating biscuits and hotcakes and whatnot. I guess they don't expect employees to do what they're told and remember it when they learn something new. But it means they like me more, and it's always good to have your managers like you. It's even better to have them like you because you're a good and hard worker. I think I'm due for a raise in the near future...
Called my girlfriend to see about checking out the new Barnes and Nobles with her tomorrow, or finish watching The Prince of Egypt, which has an amazing musical score. Speaking of which, I need to write more music for the school's play tomorrow, too. I've got a bunch of various ditties floating around that need to be strapped down and molded, but I'm still clueless about the big fight scene.
Played some football with some friends from my former youth group and their friends. Wide receiver, missed some embarrassingly easy grabs since I lack skills, but still caught an interception for a touchdown that finished the first game, and received two more in the second game. Haven't exercised much lately besides sporadic weightlifting, and I was mildly worn out.
Cardinals play tonight after 10. Commissioner Bud Selig apologized to fans for the late start, saying it was unavoidable due to other baseball and football games scheduled on the same day. Makes him look good that he even bothered to apologize, though, right? Until you read in the paper that Kit Bond noted that when a 10 o'clock playoff game occurred a few years ago, he promised "no more 10 o'clock games." And now he broke his promise. Sure, it was unavoidable, but now he gets scolded because of his previous comments.
A tip to my friend who wants to become president (and any other hopefuls out there): When you make promises, only promise to try. Never say that you will make something happen, or that you will not let something happen again. Because the Murphy demons will make sure the opposite comes true, and the media will never forget it. Poor Bud.
Edmond the Hun
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Halo Update (A Major, Major Update)
Director: Peter Jackson
Design: WETA
This news is so big that it's making Halo fanatics crazy about how awesome the movie's going to be. I'm excited but still waiting to see how King Kong looks, to see if Jackson can carry his amazing talent with Lord of the Rings through another movie (since all his pre-LOTR movies were sick cheap horror flicks). But if he succeeds with King Kong, Halo will be incredible.
Edmond the Hun
Design: WETA
This news is so big that it's making Halo fanatics crazy about how awesome the movie's going to be. I'm excited but still waiting to see how King Kong looks, to see if Jackson can carry his amazing talent with Lord of the Rings through another movie (since all his pre-LOTR movies were sick cheap horror flicks). But if he succeeds with King Kong, Halo will be incredible.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Gas Prices: The Economy In the Long Run
It appears as if gas prices will stay in this $3 range throughout the next month or two, at least, until we can get these Gulf refineries up and running again. Of course, that's providing another hurricane doesn't hit it...
I'm wondering how all of this will affect the American economy. I saw something in today's paper that said there is an expected 5% increase in retail sales this holiday season compared to last year. And I thought, did they take into account this 75% increase in gas prices? If this really maintains, I think it would seriously cut down on the average American's spending money for Christmas presents.
I freely admit that I'm ignorant about demographics and economical factors, and I think it wouldn't affect the upper class, because $5 a gallon would mean nothing to them, except that they might have to wait til next week to buy the newest iPod. And it wouldn't affect the lower class, because they can't afford to own a car anyway. But it would affect the majority of Americans, the middle class, who own a house and a car or two (or three) and pay lots of bills every month but can still afford to pay them and have money left over to buy stuff with.
It's that disposable cash ~ what most commercial businesses rely on for their profits ~ that gas prices will eat into.
The top grossing movie last weekend only made $15 million, less than half of a normal weekend. Is this an early sign of people having less disposable cash? Or is that just because the last two weekends haven't offered anything too exciting and attractive?
I read somewhere that most companies get a quarter of their annual revenue from Christmas/holiday sales. Will they get that quarter this time? Will companies go out of business? Cut workers? Increase unemployment? Start a second Great Depression?
Or am I just a seventeen year old who doesn't understand the economy?
Edmond the Hun
I'm wondering how all of this will affect the American economy. I saw something in today's paper that said there is an expected 5% increase in retail sales this holiday season compared to last year. And I thought, did they take into account this 75% increase in gas prices? If this really maintains, I think it would seriously cut down on the average American's spending money for Christmas presents.
I freely admit that I'm ignorant about demographics and economical factors, and I think it wouldn't affect the upper class, because $5 a gallon would mean nothing to them, except that they might have to wait til next week to buy the newest iPod. And it wouldn't affect the lower class, because they can't afford to own a car anyway. But it would affect the majority of Americans, the middle class, who own a house and a car or two (or three) and pay lots of bills every month but can still afford to pay them and have money left over to buy stuff with.
It's that disposable cash ~ what most commercial businesses rely on for their profits ~ that gas prices will eat into.
The top grossing movie last weekend only made $15 million, less than half of a normal weekend. Is this an early sign of people having less disposable cash? Or is that just because the last two weekends haven't offered anything too exciting and attractive?
I read somewhere that most companies get a quarter of their annual revenue from Christmas/holiday sales. Will they get that quarter this time? Will companies go out of business? Cut workers? Increase unemployment? Start a second Great Depression?
Or am I just a seventeen year old who doesn't understand the economy?
Edmond the Hun
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
The First Time I Felt Old...
was when I saw an advertisement for the Toy Story 10th Anniversary DVD.
Music Review: Switchfoot - Nothing Is Sound (4 of 5)
It was a given that the new Switchfoot CD would be oozing with professionalism ~ the quality, the sound mixing, all the various sound effects... it's a piece of art in itself. Unfortunately, it's not really all that exciting.
The music is hard to describe. It's anything but cookie cutter or formulaic. But at the same time it doesn't mean that everything they do works, either. It's professional, creative, and cool, but nothing with the instant catchiness of "Gone" or "Meant to Live." It's the sort of interesting, elegant stuff that builds up and comes down and grows on you after awhile.
I'm not sure what all the songs are about. At first glance, it seems to be nothing more than an everything-sucks album. "I want more than my desperation... Maybe I'm the one to blame... Everyone dies... My heart is darker than these oceans... It'll be a day like this one when the world caves in... I've got a wound that doesn't heal... Everything is broken... I am the crisis..." A far cry from the hope-and-encouragement message of Beautiful Letdown.!
If you look deeper, you realize that it's not so much "the world is falling apart and I'm depressed," but more like, "the world is falling apart and I want to be somewhere else." I can infer that "somewhere else" is heaven, but Switchfoot, while recognizing problems, doesn't really offer any real solutions. I think they're falling into the crossover paradox: You don't want to be too Christian, or you'll turn people off and you can't witness to them. But if you leave out the Christianity altogether, you're not witnessing to them anyway.
Two exceptions are "Golden," which is an encouraging you-are-worth-something song (although not nearly as powerful as "Dare You To Move,") and "Easier Than Love," which just frankly says that sex has pervaded our culture and media and is unfortunately easier than love.
It's obvious that Switchfoot is talented and has money to spend on professional sound quality and mixing. It's obvious that they realize the world's full of problems. But it's not obvious that they realize that God is the solution. We can only hope for that in the next album.
Edmond the Hun
The music is hard to describe. It's anything but cookie cutter or formulaic. But at the same time it doesn't mean that everything they do works, either. It's professional, creative, and cool, but nothing with the instant catchiness of "Gone" or "Meant to Live." It's the sort of interesting, elegant stuff that builds up and comes down and grows on you after awhile.
I'm not sure what all the songs are about. At first glance, it seems to be nothing more than an everything-sucks album. "I want more than my desperation... Maybe I'm the one to blame... Everyone dies... My heart is darker than these oceans... It'll be a day like this one when the world caves in... I've got a wound that doesn't heal... Everything is broken... I am the crisis..." A far cry from the hope-and-encouragement message of Beautiful Letdown.!
If you look deeper, you realize that it's not so much "the world is falling apart and I'm depressed," but more like, "the world is falling apart and I want to be somewhere else." I can infer that "somewhere else" is heaven, but Switchfoot, while recognizing problems, doesn't really offer any real solutions. I think they're falling into the crossover paradox: You don't want to be too Christian, or you'll turn people off and you can't witness to them. But if you leave out the Christianity altogether, you're not witnessing to them anyway.
Two exceptions are "Golden," which is an encouraging you-are-worth-something song (although not nearly as powerful as "Dare You To Move,") and "Easier Than Love," which just frankly says that sex has pervaded our culture and media and is unfortunately easier than love.
It's obvious that Switchfoot is talented and has money to spend on professional sound quality and mixing. It's obvious that they realize the world's full of problems. But it's not obvious that they realize that God is the solution. We can only hope for that in the next album.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Rita Clears Bush
The events surrounding Hurricane Rita should make it clear to everyone that it is ridiculous to blame Bush for his lack of response to Hurricane Katrina. In the case of Rita, local officials did everything necessary to forewarn and evacuate citizens, even if the highway clog was a mess. All Bush had to do was sit back and watch on giant TV screens and order a few federal troops in.
Katrina taught us to beware of incoming hurricanes, watch them develop and prepare accordingly. Rita proved that we learned. It also proved that the president doesn't have to get involved.
Edmond the Hun
Katrina taught us to beware of incoming hurricanes, watch them develop and prepare accordingly. Rita proved that we learned. It also proved that the president doesn't have to get involved.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Luke 21:25
On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
If the Media Was Unbiased and Consistent...
Oh my goodness!! Hurricane Rita struck the Keys! Where was Bush? Why didn't he come and do something? What's wrong with him? What's wrong with his administration? Oh my! Oh my! Oh my!
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Supreme Court: Dems Dodge Doozy
It's just too bad. Just when Bush had the Dems where we wanted them, he goes and switches Roberts to be the chief justice, instead of replacing O'Connor. It looks like he's a smart guy and will get confirmed, blah blah blah. Except Roberts is only moderately conservative, replacing Rehnquist, who was extremely conservative. That means that under Bush's nomination we've already lost some conservative. And there's no way Bush is going to replace moderate O'Connor with a conservative to balance things out. No, by all appearances the court is going to become even more liberal, and Bush is the president who's nominating them!
It's not right! I don't get it! What is Bush thinking? Why can't we stop the Supreme Court from voting on conservative/liberal issues so it won't matter anyway! Isn't their something in the Declaration of Independence about when the government gets bad it's the right of the people to alter or abolish it? Why can't we just add a provision for ambigous court cases to go to Congress for legislation instead of a final one-time decision by nine people?
Edmond the Hun
It's not right! I don't get it! What is Bush thinking? Why can't we stop the Supreme Court from voting on conservative/liberal issues so it won't matter anyway! Isn't their something in the Declaration of Independence about when the government gets bad it's the right of the people to alter or abolish it? Why can't we just add a provision for ambigous court cases to go to Congress for legislation instead of a final one-time decision by nine people?
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, September 15, 2005
The World Gets Flatter...
It appears that AOL and MSN may merge. I don't know enough to start rambling about ramifications, but I do know one thing: if it happens, the world will get even flatter.
I'm referring to an excellent book called The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman, in which he outlines the ways in the last few years that the world has been getting "flatter" as technology helps everything become so related and interconnected, leveling the playing field and empowering individuals as never before.
If this AOL-MSN merge happens, the playing field will be leveled on a new... level: Instant Messenging. Currently, Instant Messenging is very non-flat. Lots of people have AIM; lots of people have MSN Messenger. But unlike e-mail, where no matter who your provider is, you can e-mail anyone else and receive e-mails from anyone else, Instant Messenging is still localized. AIM users can't IM people using MSN Messenger.
If this merge happens, they'll all be brought together. Everyone will have to have a unique screen name, but they'll probably just add a suffix of sorts, similar to e-mail.
Let the flattening continue...
Edmond the Hun
I'm referring to an excellent book called The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman, in which he outlines the ways in the last few years that the world has been getting "flatter" as technology helps everything become so related and interconnected, leveling the playing field and empowering individuals as never before.
If this AOL-MSN merge happens, the playing field will be leveled on a new... level: Instant Messenging. Currently, Instant Messenging is very non-flat. Lots of people have AIM; lots of people have MSN Messenger. But unlike e-mail, where no matter who your provider is, you can e-mail anyone else and receive e-mails from anyone else, Instant Messenging is still localized. AIM users can't IM people using MSN Messenger.
If this merge happens, they'll all be brought together. Everyone will have to have a unique screen name, but they'll probably just add a suffix of sorts, similar to e-mail.
Let the flattening continue...
Edmond the Hun
Google Wins Again
Google is smart. First they became an excellent engine for searching the entire web. Then they added a host of other options for searching specific parts of the web. I use Google to search and browse the news all the time.
I was wondering if they would add a feature that lets you search blogs as well, and now they've done it. I searched a very specific phrase from my last post and it found my blog immediately. That means that there's a greater chance more people will find this thing. Maybe.
Edmond the Hun
I was wondering if they would add a feature that lets you search blogs as well, and now they've done it. I searched a very specific phrase from my last post and it found my blog immediately. That means that there's a greater chance more people will find this thing. Maybe.
Edmond the Hun
Monday, September 12, 2005
The President: Why Are They Pointing Fingers At You?
Once again, the media uses an event as an excuse to portray President Bush in a bad light. Why didn't he respond sooner? If he had done something quicker, thousands would have been saved!
But there are some facts the media is not emphasizing, and that I have gleaned either by reading the articles closely or from conservative radio. First, the hurricane wiped out the communications systems that emergency response people normally rely on, so it was harder for them to make things happen. Second, the mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana didn't do anything to help helpless people evacuate in time, and they certainly had more resources and time than Bush did, who has 49 other states to worry about, too.
Which brings me to my own point: Perhaps the reason Bush did not take more action sooner was because he didn't realize he needed to! That may sound farfetched, but hindsight is always 20/20. Think about it.
How often does the federal government get involved in most hurricanes, anyway? People board up and hoard supplies, some people evacuate, some homes get wiped away, the Red Cross and Coast Guard take care of everything, no need for the President, right? In other words, we've never expected Bush to have buses full of water bottles ready to go whenever a hurricane hit. It wasn't needed.
OK, so it's true that Katrina was not your average hurricane, and we knew it wasn't going to be your average hurricane before it hit. But that still doesn't make it Bush's responsibility. Why didn't the mayor or governor or other local officials organize and load up the buses? No, somehow, Bush was supposed to be doing that, even though he still had all his normal presidential responsibilities to worry about as well.
For years the media has been treating Bush in a strange way. Whenever anything in this country doesn't go as it should, somehow it's Bush's fault that it went wrong. And that's really not fair.
Edmond the Hun
But there are some facts the media is not emphasizing, and that I have gleaned either by reading the articles closely or from conservative radio. First, the hurricane wiped out the communications systems that emergency response people normally rely on, so it was harder for them to make things happen. Second, the mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana didn't do anything to help helpless people evacuate in time, and they certainly had more resources and time than Bush did, who has 49 other states to worry about, too.
Which brings me to my own point: Perhaps the reason Bush did not take more action sooner was because he didn't realize he needed to! That may sound farfetched, but hindsight is always 20/20. Think about it.
How often does the federal government get involved in most hurricanes, anyway? People board up and hoard supplies, some people evacuate, some homes get wiped away, the Red Cross and Coast Guard take care of everything, no need for the President, right? In other words, we've never expected Bush to have buses full of water bottles ready to go whenever a hurricane hit. It wasn't needed.
OK, so it's true that Katrina was not your average hurricane, and we knew it wasn't going to be your average hurricane before it hit. But that still doesn't make it Bush's responsibility. Why didn't the mayor or governor or other local officials organize and load up the buses? No, somehow, Bush was supposed to be doing that, even though he still had all his normal presidential responsibilities to worry about as well.
For years the media has been treating Bush in a strange way. Whenever anything in this country doesn't go as it should, somehow it's Bush's fault that it went wrong. And that's really not fair.
Edmond the Hun
The President: Why Are You Letting Them Point Fingers At You?
It's been almost five years since Bush was first elected president. The media has criticized him for just about everything ~ from not being prepared for 9/11 to not winning the war in Iraq to not being prepared for Hurricane Katrina. While I don't like how the media responds, I also don't like how Bush responds to the media response: typically, with nothing.
I don't understand it. When the media criticizes Bush about something, either they're wrong or they're right. If they're right, Bush should admit it and, if possible, correct it. If they're wrong, Bush should explain to everyone why they're wrong. It's not that hard, is it? What, is he wrong and too proud to admit it? Are the explanations too complicated for people to understand? Do the explanations involve classified information? Then at least tell us the explanation is classified! At least tell us there's an explanation!
Yet Bush has responded with neither. We either have to assume that Bush has an explanation he for some reason won't tell us, or that he has no explanation and is wrong. It's got to be one or the other! And we know which one the media assumes...
This leaves the conservative radio folks to explain why the media is wrong, but obviously not enough people are listening. And then they wonder why Bush's ratings are slipping to all-time lows.
I am beginning to think of Bush as an incompetent president. Not because of what the media says about him, but because of what Bush says about what the media says about him: Nothing.
To defend yourself, Bush, you either have to admit error or explain to everyone why you're not in error. To do neither is to be incompetent.
Edmond the Hun
I don't understand it. When the media criticizes Bush about something, either they're wrong or they're right. If they're right, Bush should admit it and, if possible, correct it. If they're wrong, Bush should explain to everyone why they're wrong. It's not that hard, is it? What, is he wrong and too proud to admit it? Are the explanations too complicated for people to understand? Do the explanations involve classified information? Then at least tell us the explanation is classified! At least tell us there's an explanation!
Yet Bush has responded with neither. We either have to assume that Bush has an explanation he for some reason won't tell us, or that he has no explanation and is wrong. It's got to be one or the other! And we know which one the media assumes...
This leaves the conservative radio folks to explain why the media is wrong, but obviously not enough people are listening. And then they wonder why Bush's ratings are slipping to all-time lows.
I am beginning to think of Bush as an incompetent president. Not because of what the media says about him, but because of what Bush says about what the media says about him: Nothing.
To defend yourself, Bush, you either have to admit error or explain to everyone why you're not in error. To do neither is to be incompetent.
Edmond the Hun
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Surpise! Embryonic Stem Cells Aren's So Great
Remember all the hype and debate a few months ago about using embryonic stem cells to find cures for diseases? I believe I blogged something about the immorality about it.
Anyway, it turns out that these embryonic stem cells aren't as great as we once thought. They mutate after awhile and... I'll spare you the scientific stuff, but essentially, they're not that useful.
Gotta love the scientists these days. They promise that embryonic stem cells will be the cure for all diseases so they can get government funding, and then it turns out they were wrong.
Edmond the Hun
(Proof: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050906/01)
Anyway, it turns out that these embryonic stem cells aren't as great as we once thought. They mutate after awhile and... I'll spare you the scientific stuff, but essentially, they're not that useful.
Gotta love the scientists these days. They promise that embryonic stem cells will be the cure for all diseases so they can get government funding, and then it turns out they were wrong.
Edmond the Hun
(Proof: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050906/01)
Monday, September 05, 2005
Supreme Court: Democrats in Deep
The analysis has only just begun regarding the impact of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death. What does it mean for the Court? For Bush? For nominee Roberts? Well, I know what it means for the Democrats.
They're in a tough spot.
They are already risking a loss of credibility by their desire to grill Roberts with extensive questions to make sure he will uphold certain rights, which obviously simply means, make sure he believes what we believe so he'll vote the way we want him to, instead of the way Bush wants him to. Otherwise we won't vote him in. Clearly, as long as Roberts will uphold the Constituion, his opinions regarding specific things is irrelevant. It won't take the public long to recognize the Democrat's hopless scheme.
However, Rehnquist's vacancy makes things even harder for them. They threatened everything but murder if Bush tried to replace moderate O'Conner with a hardcore conservative. Now, Rehnquist was a hardcore conservative, but the Democrats will surely want to replace him a liberal or at least a moderate. Anything but a conservative! Yet if they suggest that, they will be practicing a double standard by wanting to do themselves what they would not allow Bush to do.
It will interesting to see how the Democrats will react in the days and weeks to come. If they ask Roberts too many questions, they will be exposed as only willing to accept someone who will behave the way they like. But if they don't, they won't have a reason not to vote for him. If they try to replace Rehnquist with a non-conservative, they will be exposed as holding to a double standard. But they don't want Rehnquist replaced with another conservative either.
They're stuck in what appears to be a lose-lose situation for both vacancies. Let's see what they can cook up...
Edmond the Hun
They're in a tough spot.
They are already risking a loss of credibility by their desire to grill Roberts with extensive questions to make sure he will uphold certain rights, which obviously simply means, make sure he believes what we believe so he'll vote the way we want him to, instead of the way Bush wants him to. Otherwise we won't vote him in. Clearly, as long as Roberts will uphold the Constituion, his opinions regarding specific things is irrelevant. It won't take the public long to recognize the Democrat's hopless scheme.
However, Rehnquist's vacancy makes things even harder for them. They threatened everything but murder if Bush tried to replace moderate O'Conner with a hardcore conservative. Now, Rehnquist was a hardcore conservative, but the Democrats will surely want to replace him a liberal or at least a moderate. Anything but a conservative! Yet if they suggest that, they will be practicing a double standard by wanting to do themselves what they would not allow Bush to do.
It will interesting to see how the Democrats will react in the days and weeks to come. If they ask Roberts too many questions, they will be exposed as only willing to accept someone who will behave the way they like. But if they don't, they won't have a reason not to vote for him. If they try to replace Rehnquist with a non-conservative, they will be exposed as holding to a double standard. But they don't want Rehnquist replaced with another conservative either.
They're stuck in what appears to be a lose-lose situation for both vacancies. Let's see what they can cook up...
Edmond the Hun
Hurricane Katrina: No Surprises Here
The news has been plastered with Hurricane Katrina lately, but I haven't found anything too surprising.
I was not surprised that there was widespread looting, even among police officers. In a society that largely ignores any religion or accompanying morals, there is nothing to prevent someone from a desire to take available goods. Even for those who have religious beliefs against stealing, if you're out of food and water...
I was not surprised that it took the government a few days to get relief flowing. Just because a hurricane hit doesn't mean that they didn't lose all their other responsibilites. Plus, the huge extent of the hurricane's damage added to the difficulty of organizing a sufficient response.
I was not surprised that the government was criticized for their slow reponse, especially President Bush. Criticizm of Bush often stems from an apparent belief that he is a king who can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Either that or a belief that buses and bottled water spring out of the ground ready for use.
I was not surprised that celebrities donated money as a publicity stunt (I mean, really, how much of a sacrifice is $250,000 for Hilary Fluff?).
I was not surprised that gas prices spiked with a decrease of supply and that they are already dropping as the supply is slowly reinstated.
It's all about cause and effect.
OK, so there was one fact that has surprised me. The rate at which money is being donated and collected is equal to and even exceeds the rate at which it was gathered for 9/11 or for the tsunami victims. I might have guessed that with higher gas prices people would have less money to give to homeless people they don't know. I would have been wrong.
Yes, selfishness and greed are healthy and alive in America. But compassion is too.
Edmond the Hun
I was not surprised that there was widespread looting, even among police officers. In a society that largely ignores any religion or accompanying morals, there is nothing to prevent someone from a desire to take available goods. Even for those who have religious beliefs against stealing, if you're out of food and water...
I was not surprised that it took the government a few days to get relief flowing. Just because a hurricane hit doesn't mean that they didn't lose all their other responsibilites. Plus, the huge extent of the hurricane's damage added to the difficulty of organizing a sufficient response.
I was not surprised that the government was criticized for their slow reponse, especially President Bush. Criticizm of Bush often stems from an apparent belief that he is a king who can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Either that or a belief that buses and bottled water spring out of the ground ready for use.
I was not surprised that celebrities donated money as a publicity stunt (I mean, really, how much of a sacrifice is $250,000 for Hilary Fluff?).
I was not surprised that gas prices spiked with a decrease of supply and that they are already dropping as the supply is slowly reinstated.
It's all about cause and effect.
OK, so there was one fact that has surprised me. The rate at which money is being donated and collected is equal to and even exceeds the rate at which it was gathered for 9/11 or for the tsunami victims. I might have guessed that with higher gas prices people would have less money to give to homeless people they don't know. I would have been wrong.
Yes, selfishness and greed are healthy and alive in America. But compassion is too.
Edmond the Hun
Friday, September 02, 2005
Halo Movie, Reconsidered
Two of my friends strongly disagreed with me about my assertion that a Halo movie would flop. I started a poll on a forum that I frequent to discuss this very issue. As it stands after two days, the votes are:
4 for "Can't wait, I'll definitely see it"
3 for "Maybe, I'll wait for more info"
2 for "It won't work, I'll save my money"
Now, I realize that this is a very localized poll, consisting of a few visitors to an online Christian forum, and can in no way represent the overall enthusiasm of the nation as a whole toward this movie. But it would at least appear that a Halo movie would be more popular and better received than I initially believed.
Here are a few excerpts of posters' comments:
Edmond the Hun
4 for "Can't wait, I'll definitely see it"
3 for "Maybe, I'll wait for more info"
2 for "It won't work, I'll save my money"
Now, I realize that this is a very localized poll, consisting of a few visitors to an online Christian forum, and can in no way represent the overall enthusiasm of the nation as a whole toward this movie. But it would at least appear that a Halo movie would be more popular and better received than I initially believed.
Here are a few excerpts of posters' comments:
- "Sounds like a heckuva good movie to me. Master Chief massacring aliens sounds just as good to watch as to control."
- "Well, I think the Halo movie will do quite well. It has an immensely deep storyline, with or without the alien killing."
- "sounds kinda cool. I flip for the video game, but a movie might be a bit of a stretch... lets just see how it turns out."
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, September 01, 2005
More on the End of the World
$2.99 and counting.
It can't be much longer before people start responding. Riots, strikes, I don't know. Something's gonna happen. This wouldn't be such a big deal if OPEC didn't exist. If we could buy oil from nations individually, they would all be competing for lower prices, instead of binding together to make oil $70 a barrel.
On the other hand, gas stations in America aren't united in a union, and yet when one station jumps thirty cents, all the ones around it do too. Except Casey's gas station, which waits a few hours to get all the people.
So maybe breaking up OPEC wouldn't help much. But I still think President Bush should tell the OPEC nations that if any of them want to leave OPEC and sell oil cheaper, we'll buy from them. It's the Casey's principle. We should at least give it a try.
Edmond the Hun
It can't be much longer before people start responding. Riots, strikes, I don't know. Something's gonna happen. This wouldn't be such a big deal if OPEC didn't exist. If we could buy oil from nations individually, they would all be competing for lower prices, instead of binding together to make oil $70 a barrel.
On the other hand, gas stations in America aren't united in a union, and yet when one station jumps thirty cents, all the ones around it do too. Except Casey's gas station, which waits a few hours to get all the people.
So maybe breaking up OPEC wouldn't help much. But I still think President Bush should tell the OPEC nations that if any of them want to leave OPEC and sell oil cheaper, we'll buy from them. It's the Casey's principle. We should at least give it a try.
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
The End of the World Continues...
$2.69 a gallon!! Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!
One gas station by my house only went up to $2.46, and it was completely packed when I went to work at 4. When I came home at 7, it had gone up to $2.51, but it was still completely packed. Smart gas station.
But it's rumored to go up even more before the weekend's over??
Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!
One gas station by my house only went up to $2.46, and it was completely packed when I went to work at 4. When I came home at 7, it had gone up to $2.51, but it was still completely packed. Smart gas station.
But it's rumored to go up even more before the weekend's over??
Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!
The Piano Man: Wrapping Up
Well, the mystery is mostly over.
Here is a synopsis of the facts that have emerged in recent days:
His name is Andreas Grassl.
He learned to play keyboard at age 10, and he plays well, but is not a concert pianist.
He was the only gay in his village.
He yearned for fame and asked people such as Bill Gates and Robbie Williams to help him launch a career in media.
He got a column in a local paper and criticized the instant fame of celebrities and longed to be a millionaire.
He said he suffered a breakdown, but other than that we still don't know exactly what happened, and the jury's still out on whether he was faking it all or it was something trauma-realted.
And that's about all.
As one German newspaper said, "The truth is often so awfully banal."
Edmond the Hun
Here is a synopsis of the facts that have emerged in recent days:
His name is Andreas Grassl.
He learned to play keyboard at age 10, and he plays well, but is not a concert pianist.
He was the only gay in his village.
He yearned for fame and asked people such as Bill Gates and Robbie Williams to help him launch a career in media.
He got a column in a local paper and criticized the instant fame of celebrities and longed to be a millionaire.
He said he suffered a breakdown, but other than that we still don't know exactly what happened, and the jury's still out on whether he was faking it all or it was something trauma-realted.
And that's about all.
As one German newspaper said, "The truth is often so awfully banal."
Edmond the Hun
Monday, August 29, 2005
Halo Movie?
So I read this article about a Halo movie. Something about Microsoft selling rights or buying them or something or other ~ I don't remember. The point is there's plans, as preliminary as they may be at this point, for a Halo movie based off the bestselling and ever-popular game.
The movie, if it is ever released, will flop.
There's no way around it. Games-to-movies, from Resident Evil to Tomb Raider, have never worked too well. Why? Games are entertaining because they are repetitive yet increasingly challenging, while movies are entertaining because of an excellent plot, or humor, or something literary like that. In a game, it might be different every time you play it, depending on how good you are, while a movie is always the same. They're just completely different types of media.
And in a more specific sense, Halo would not work. Halo is not loved and worshipped because of its one-player storyline shooting aliens (and what else could they make the movie about?). It is loved and worshipped because of its multi-player humans-shoot-humans, allowing for endless fun as you develop your skill relative to that of everyone else in the world (literally). There's no way to translate that into a game.
So, if this Halo movie thing comes true, I just can't see it making a lot of money. Gamers would rather save their eight bucks and play more Halo.
Edmond the Hun
The movie, if it is ever released, will flop.
There's no way around it. Games-to-movies, from Resident Evil to Tomb Raider, have never worked too well. Why? Games are entertaining because they are repetitive yet increasingly challenging, while movies are entertaining because of an excellent plot, or humor, or something literary like that. In a game, it might be different every time you play it, depending on how good you are, while a movie is always the same. They're just completely different types of media.
And in a more specific sense, Halo would not work. Halo is not loved and worshipped because of its one-player storyline shooting aliens (and what else could they make the movie about?). It is loved and worshipped because of its multi-player humans-shoot-humans, allowing for endless fun as you develop your skill relative to that of everyone else in the world (literally). There's no way to translate that into a game.
So, if this Halo movie thing comes true, I just can't see it making a lot of money. Gamers would rather save their eight bucks and play more Halo.
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, August 27, 2005
And Then Marquis Pitches A Shutout...
Whoops.
The unpredictability of sports strikes again. Only two days after I begged LaRussa to spare the Cardinals and take Jason Marquis out of the lineup, he pitches a complete game shutout.
The unpredictability of sports strikes again. Only two days after I begged LaRussa to spare the Cardinals and take Jason Marquis out of the lineup, he pitches a complete game shutout.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Sports: Cards Need to Can Starter
The Cardinals starting pitcher Jason Marquis lost again Tuesday night. He's lost seven in a row, having not won sine July 16. I know you can argue that several of his losses were not all his fault, but his ERA has climbed to the worst in the team, 4.67, and there's no denying that he's not starter quality any more.
I don't understand why Tony LaRussa isn't demoting the guy back to minor league, or at least a reliever or something. In the NFL, when the starting quarterback loses games consistently, they replace him. In fact, they even replace him when he doesn't lose all the games. That's why Kurt Warner's on his third team in three years.
There's no reason to guarantee a Cardinal's loss with each start by Marquis. Let him be a pinch-hitter. He's got the best batting average on the team.
Edmond the Hun
I don't understand why Tony LaRussa isn't demoting the guy back to minor league, or at least a reliever or something. In the NFL, when the starting quarterback loses games consistently, they replace him. In fact, they even replace him when he doesn't lose all the games. That's why Kurt Warner's on his third team in three years.
There's no reason to guarantee a Cardinal's loss with each start by Marquis. Let him be a pinch-hitter. He's got the best batting average on the team.
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
The Piano Man: End of the Mystery?
The Piano Man has been released from the hospital. (see current for brief details if you don't know what I'm talking about)
There is a report that he finally spoke and said he was from Germany and he came to Britain after losing his job in Paris. A hospital official refused to comment. German officials confirmed he was a 20-year-old from Bavaria and flew home to Germany on Saturday.
Is this the end of the story, then? He's just a regular guy from Germany? Or is that report false? If it's not, why don't we have a name?
I don't know what to think. If the report's true, it's a rather anticlimactic and boring end to this intriguing mystery. But the article didn't seem to imply that they could guarantee the report was true. Guess we'll have to stick around for more information...
Edmond the Hun
(Proof: www.msn.com)
There is a report that he finally spoke and said he was from Germany and he came to Britain after losing his job in Paris. A hospital official refused to comment. German officials confirmed he was a 20-year-old from Bavaria and flew home to Germany on Saturday.
Is this the end of the story, then? He's just a regular guy from Germany? Or is that report false? If it's not, why don't we have a name?
I don't know what to think. If the report's true, it's a rather anticlimactic and boring end to this intriguing mystery. But the article didn't seem to imply that they could guarantee the report was true. Guess we'll have to stick around for more information...
Edmond the Hun
(Proof: www.msn.com)
Monday, August 22, 2005
Demotivation Poster #1
So here I am updating my blog. Except there's nothing in the news worth blogging about. So here's a demotivation poster for you from www.despair.com. There are a lot more where that came from.
Edmond the Hun
Note: The philosophies expressed on these posters are not necessarily those of edmondthehun.blogspot.com. They may or may not be serving merely humorous value.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Movie Review: March of the Penguins (5 of 5)
So a bunch of guys who like cold weather go to Antarctica and film some penguins. They come back and turn it into a documentary for a few small theaters. It's so well-received that they expand to over two thousand theaters, including one close enough for me to go see it.
Let me start out by telling you what March of the Penguins is not. It's not an action-packed thriller, although penguins getting chased by a seal is a little suspenseful. It's not a romantic comedy, although there is plenty of info about penguin love, and it is very amusing when waddling penguins fall over on the ice.
It's a first-rate documentary. Simple, interesting, informative, and very cute. Learning about these penguins isn't at all boring. The background music is almost classical, almost jazz, almost elevator music ~ perfect for a documentary, and yet I can still recall some of the tunes four days later (I want the soundtrack, if it's for sale). The fabulous shots of glittering icebergs as the setting is a nice bonus, too.
Even if you don't like informative nature documentaries, this movie is so well-done that I think you'll still find it enjoyable. I do admit that I wouldn't pay another $6.75 to see it once, but it is something that I will definitely want to see again.
Edmond the Hun
Let me start out by telling you what March of the Penguins is not. It's not an action-packed thriller, although penguins getting chased by a seal is a little suspenseful. It's not a romantic comedy, although there is plenty of info about penguin love, and it is very amusing when waddling penguins fall over on the ice.
It's a first-rate documentary. Simple, interesting, informative, and very cute. Learning about these penguins isn't at all boring. The background music is almost classical, almost jazz, almost elevator music ~ perfect for a documentary, and yet I can still recall some of the tunes four days later (I want the soundtrack, if it's for sale). The fabulous shots of glittering icebergs as the setting is a nice bonus, too.
Even if you don't like informative nature documentaries, this movie is so well-done that I think you'll still find it enjoyable. I do admit that I wouldn't pay another $6.75 to see it once, but it is something that I will definitely want to see again.
Edmond the Hun
Monday, August 15, 2005
The Last First Day
Here I am, at my last first day of high school. Fun stuff. I'm blogging from the computer class, of which I am trying to retain an open mind and try to learn something about computers I don't know. Yay.
Edmond the Hun
Edmond the Hun
Friday, August 12, 2005
Mother Loses 37 Pounds Eating McDonald's
Yes, it's true.
Many of you have probably heard about the documentary Super Size Me, where this guy ate nothing but McDonald's for a period of time and gained weight or something like that. Well, he was eating 5,000 calories a day, eating everything on the menu at least once.
This lady decided that McDonald's was being unfairly criticized, that the responsibility for obesity was shifting to the providers of the food and not the ones who actually eat it (smart woman).
So she ate at McDonald's three times a day for 90 days. She used their website to select meals that amounted to no more than 1,400 calories a day, eating mostly salads and burgers and hardly any french fries.
And she lost 37 pounds.
This woman is living proof that it's not McDonald's---or any other unhealthy fast food provider's---fault if you're fat and unhealthy. It's your own fault for eating the food. You have the power to know the nutritional information of the food you're eating, and you have the power to adjust your diet accordingly.
It's about time people started taking responsbility for their own actions and stopped blaming it on corporate giants who pay me $6 an hour to give you food so I can go buy gas that may soon cost me half an hour per gallon.
Edmond the Hun
(Proof: www.cnn.com)
Many of you have probably heard about the documentary Super Size Me, where this guy ate nothing but McDonald's for a period of time and gained weight or something like that. Well, he was eating 5,000 calories a day, eating everything on the menu at least once.
This lady decided that McDonald's was being unfairly criticized, that the responsibility for obesity was shifting to the providers of the food and not the ones who actually eat it (smart woman).
So she ate at McDonald's three times a day for 90 days. She used their website to select meals that amounted to no more than 1,400 calories a day, eating mostly salads and burgers and hardly any french fries.
And she lost 37 pounds.
This woman is living proof that it's not McDonald's---or any other unhealthy fast food provider's---fault if you're fat and unhealthy. It's your own fault for eating the food. You have the power to know the nutritional information of the food you're eating, and you have the power to adjust your diet accordingly.
It's about time people started taking responsbility for their own actions and stopped blaming it on corporate giants who pay me $6 an hour to give you food so I can go buy gas that may soon cost me half an hour per gallon.
Edmond the Hun
(Proof: www.cnn.com)
Saturday, August 06, 2005
War on Terrorism: Racial Profiling
Liberals are getting all freaked out about this new concept of racial profiling. I, for one, hope that it becomes fully implemented into our transportation system, and very quickly, at that.
Racial profiling is the idea that security offers focus their random bag searches on male Arabs/Muslims and related types of suspicious people groups. The reasons are fairly obvious: the major terrorist attacks on Western civilization in recent years have come from those male Arab/Muslim types. If we checked them thoroughly before allowing them on our trains or subways or airplanes, then we would make it much harder for them to penetrate with an attack.
Of course, civil liberties obsessives are crying foul. That's unfair discrimination, they claim. That's unfair to all the poor peace-loving Muslims who want to live a simple life here.
My response: Too bad. Live with it.
If there was an outbreak of bombs blowing up in the US caused exclusively by male teenagers, and the government decided to carefully check the baggage of every male teenager that boarded a plane, sure, I would hate the extra difficulties presented to me personally, but I would understand that it was necessary. In fact, this sort of group-specific discrimination has already been present in our society for years. It's called car insurance.
Male teenagers are irresponsible, or so the statistics say. We immature young adults don't pay attention and cause considerably more wrecks than any other driving demographic. So the insurance companies hit us up with considerably larger payments. I sigh and submit, because I need to use my car. Where are the same liberal groups in this situation? Why aren't they crying, foul! You can't discriminate against all those poor responsible male teenagers who just want to live a simple life and drive their cars around!
But they don't do that, because there are enough irresponsible crash-causing male teenagers that it makes sense to just charge them all more money instead of wasting time trying to find some way to measure responsibility and driving skill. Likewise, there are enough Arab Muslim types that have made terrorist attacks on our society and are continuing to plan them, that it makes sense to just screen all of them before boarding planes and trains instead of wasting time trying to find some way to figure out which ones are peace-loving and which ones aren't.
Peace-loving Muslims of America, I'm sorry for the extra trouble racial profiling may cause you. But you have no choice. You must sigh and submit. It's the only way to protect us from further attacks.
But oddly enough, they're not the ones that I'm hearing complaints from. This anti-profiling stuff is all from the civil liberties groups. So to you, I say: Shut up! Stop preventing us from preventing terrorist attacks! Or, if you're so excited about group-specific discrimination, find a way to lower my insurance bill.
Edmond the Hun
Sports: Preventing Indian Mascots
The NCAA has banned 18 college mascots, which are Indian-related, from championship events, calling them "hostile and abusive." Indians---or Blackwhawks, or Braves, or Seminoles, or whatever---have been used as mascots for American sports teams for years, and there has always been debate over whether it's demeaning to our real Native Americans. Apparently, the NCAA thinks it is.
However, they're not offering a reason for why they think it's "hostile and abusive." Come to think of it, I've never heard a good reason at all. I don't see why any Indians should be offended at all.
Think about it. When a team picks a mascot, what are they looking for? Something strong, something powerful, something inspiring. That's why we lions, tigers, bears, and eagles are so powerful. Would a lion complain that it was being abused because a team used his species for a mascot? No, for the same reason a celebrity doesn't complain when she's put on one of those "50 Most Influential People" lists (or whatever they're called.) It's a compliment! It's an honor! It's saying, you're so cool that we want to honor you. You're special enough to be a symbol of our team's strength and inspiration.
Teams don't pick mice or caterpillars for their mascots. They're weak. They're not inspiring.
Teams pick worthy icons for their mascots. And Native American Indians are certainly worthy.
Their warriors are historically famous for their incredible strength, endurance, and ferocity in battle. Naming a team after an Indian is simply honoring those virtuous characteristics and delcaring their desire to emulate them. There's nothing "hostile" or "abusive" about it!
Leaders of the NCAA, don't prevent your colleges from honoring this special ethnic group of our country. Native Americans, when a team picks you for their mascot, they're saying that you are worthy of honor and respect! What's so offensive about it?
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Mysteries Revealed: The Life of A French Fry
Doubtlessly, you have consumed thousands of those potato by-products known as "French fries" without giving the slightest thought to the long and arduous process by which they are prepared. This dark and mysterous pathway shall be illuminated by the light of my experience in a little McDonald's restaurant in the heart of America.
Let us begin the journey.
The shaping of the fries is a part of the process not known to me, but I imagine it involves slicing potatoes into thin strips a few inches long and freezing them. These frozen fries are placed into brown paper bags. About six brown paper bags are placed into a cardboard box. Thousands of cardboard boxes donate their residence to these paper bags with frozen fries.
These boxes, bags, and fries arrive at the restaurant via the truck. Or should I say, the Truck. I have never seen the vehicle mentioned in writing, but it is referred to so uncompromisingly as "the Truck,"---never "a truck," or "the supply truck," or "the big truck," but simply, "the Truck,"---that one almost imagines it has reverently been entitled to a capital letter. The Truck is as necessary to the life of the restaurant as the ships were to the early colonists. It brings not only fries, but meat patties, chicken, cups, lids, sauces, ice cream, apples, grapes, lettuce, pickles, onions, cheese, buns, nuts strawberries, toys, stickers, straws, napkins, cookies, croutons, syrup, coffee filters, coffee, fry bags, take out bags, burger boxes, tray liners, bottles of water, containers of milk, containers of chocolate milk, apple juice, salad dressings, forks, knives, trash bags, and a host of other things that I have forgotten or am not yet aware of.
The cardboard boxes containing the bags containing the fries are taken from the Truck and carried into the walk-in freezer. A reinforced steel door opens into the first room, which averages 38 degrees Fahrenheit and holds the aforementioned items that need to remain cooled. A second reinforced steel door opens into a second room, which averages 11 degress Fahrenheit and holds the aforementioned itmes that need to remain frozen. This is where the fries are kept.
(On a completely unrelated note, it feels very good to walk into the walk-in after you've been standing over the fry station or grease vats or grill.)
When fries are needed, a lucky employee is chosen to carry a box from the freezer into the fry hopper, which is a large plastic container shaped somewhat like an upside-down triangle with tiny metal doors at the bottom right. The cardboard box is opened. The brown paper bags are opened and dumped into the fry hopper.
Below the large plastic container is a sort of mini conveyor belt for metal baskets with handles. The fry hopper is somewhat intelligent, and it knows when there is a basket on the top ledge of the belt, and it opens its tiny metal doors and drops fries into the basket. The basket then slides down to the end of the bottom ledge of the belt.
Another employee, or perhaps the same one, takes the basket by the handle and places it into a vat of pure grease. This is known as "dropping a fry basket." The employee presses a timer on the side of the vat, which is set for three minutes and ten seconds.
The employee waits three minutes and ten seconds.
The timer beeps and flashes "PULL." The employee pushes the timer (to stop the irritating beeping) and pulls the basket up and dumps the hot, cooked, fresh fries into the adjacent fry station. He pours salt from a salt dispenser onto the fries.
There are empty bags of small, medium, and large fries. The employee takes the desired bag in one hand, and with a little metal container in the other, sccops up fries and funnels them into the bag.
The bag is then placed onto a tray or into a bag, depending on the method of your order.
You pick up a fry with your fingers, and place it in your mouth, where it passes in and out of your body. But we will leave the details of that process unexplored.
Edmond the Hun
Monday, August 01, 2005
Back
Hey, I'm back from Mexico. Good stuff. I'll be working on updating everything over the next few days, so be patient. Bien?
Edmond the Hun
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Inspiration and Adios!
I had a stroke of inspiration while working today. When there are no news stories worth commenting on, I will entertain you with horror stories, such as "When the Baseball Team Came
Through" and "The Life of a French Fry." But those stories will have to wait until August, because I'm going to Mexico on a mission trip. I will most likely be disconnected from the outside world for the entire time (especially if hurricanes keep forming). I shall update everything when I get back.
I leave on a positive note: I finally broke the seven minute mile! 6:55. That is slow. But it is also faster than a lot of people. I am happy. The next barrier will be 6:40.
Edmond the Hun
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Monday, July 18, 2005
Islam vs. the West: What Do We Do?
There are many questions about the relationship between Islam and the West, and I have few answers.
First, there is the issue of the two opposing sides of Islam. There is the group that the media portrays as the majority of Muslims ~ the peaceful, simple, happy Arab folk who just want to practice their religion. There's the other group that hates all Americans, or at least, Christians and Jews, and wants to kill them all and will sacrifice their own lives to do it. Now, obviously, both of these groups can't be practicing true Islam.
Christians have the ugly Crusades in their history, but those Crusaders were acting in contradictory to the teachings of the Bible, and they weren't acting like Christians. Are these irrational sucidal radicals doing the same thing? Is Islam really (as we'd like to believe) all about peace? But then where do these radicals get their antics from? Or are these radicals practicing true Islam, and it's the peaceful folk who are ignoring the "kill the infidel" parts of their religion? I don't know enough about Islam and the Koran to know which side is practicing true Islam, but I know it can't be both.
I also know that a Muslim killed a filmmaker in the Netherlands because he thought the guy had insulted Muslim women in a film, and his religion required that he make the guy pay. He said to the family something like (not exact quote) "I don't feel your pain, I'm not sorry, and I'd do it again." He knew he was following his religion! What do the peaceful folk say to that?
Second, if true Islam involves murdering Americans (or Christians and Jews), would that provide grounds for banning Muslims from our country, or making Islam illegal, or something else to that effect? The London terrorists lived freely in Britain, and there are still radical religious leaders there who are openly anti-British. A huge step in preventing future terrorist attacks would be to simply eliminate them from the country. If they can't live here and plot things under our noses, it's much harder for a terrorist attack to take place.
Of course, we do have the whole freedom of religion issue. We can't just discriminate based on religious beliefs. That's why we left Britain in the first place. But what if the religion is openly against our government? If there was a religion that said that raping and killing young girls was the pathway to heaven, do you think anyone would have a problem with locking up people who practiced that religion? These radical Islamists are a danger to society. But what about all the peaceful Muslims, you say? But if true Islam involves murdering people, I say, then they're supposed to be killing people too. All the more reason to kick them out.
But even if true Islam involves murdering Americans (which it may not), and we further conclude that it is a great danger to our society, that brings us to a third question:
Can we lock people up or kick them out solely for their beliefs? Even if they believe it's OK to do illegal things, can we really do anything about it before they've actually done anything illegal? We've never challenged the right to anything so fundamental and intangible. As it stands, we can't arrest a Muslim before he kills a Christian in the name of Allah. But if we knows he's supposed to be killing Christians, then aren't we being stupid to sit there and wait for him to kill someone before we arrest him? Why not prevent the crime if we know it's going to happen? Because we've never said it was illegal to merely believe anything. Everything in our law system is based on actions.
I don't know if true Islam is about murder. And, even if it is, I don't know if it would be right to make its mere belief and practice a crime. But I do know that if Islam was illegal and all Muslims were deported, our country would be in much less danger of a terrorist attack.
Until I find more answers,
Edmond the Hun
First, there is the issue of the two opposing sides of Islam. There is the group that the media portrays as the majority of Muslims ~ the peaceful, simple, happy Arab folk who just want to practice their religion. There's the other group that hates all Americans, or at least, Christians and Jews, and wants to kill them all and will sacrifice their own lives to do it. Now, obviously, both of these groups can't be practicing true Islam.
Christians have the ugly Crusades in their history, but those Crusaders were acting in contradictory to the teachings of the Bible, and they weren't acting like Christians. Are these irrational sucidal radicals doing the same thing? Is Islam really (as we'd like to believe) all about peace? But then where do these radicals get their antics from? Or are these radicals practicing true Islam, and it's the peaceful folk who are ignoring the "kill the infidel" parts of their religion? I don't know enough about Islam and the Koran to know which side is practicing true Islam, but I know it can't be both.
I also know that a Muslim killed a filmmaker in the Netherlands because he thought the guy had insulted Muslim women in a film, and his religion required that he make the guy pay. He said to the family something like (not exact quote) "I don't feel your pain, I'm not sorry, and I'd do it again." He knew he was following his religion! What do the peaceful folk say to that?
Second, if true Islam involves murdering Americans (or Christians and Jews), would that provide grounds for banning Muslims from our country, or making Islam illegal, or something else to that effect? The London terrorists lived freely in Britain, and there are still radical religious leaders there who are openly anti-British. A huge step in preventing future terrorist attacks would be to simply eliminate them from the country. If they can't live here and plot things under our noses, it's much harder for a terrorist attack to take place.
Of course, we do have the whole freedom of religion issue. We can't just discriminate based on religious beliefs. That's why we left Britain in the first place. But what if the religion is openly against our government? If there was a religion that said that raping and killing young girls was the pathway to heaven, do you think anyone would have a problem with locking up people who practiced that religion? These radical Islamists are a danger to society. But what about all the peaceful Muslims, you say? But if true Islam involves murdering people, I say, then they're supposed to be killing people too. All the more reason to kick them out.
But even if true Islam involves murdering Americans (which it may not), and we further conclude that it is a great danger to our society, that brings us to a third question:
Can we lock people up or kick them out solely for their beliefs? Even if they believe it's OK to do illegal things, can we really do anything about it before they've actually done anything illegal? We've never challenged the right to anything so fundamental and intangible. As it stands, we can't arrest a Muslim before he kills a Christian in the name of Allah. But if we knows he's supposed to be killing Christians, then aren't we being stupid to sit there and wait for him to kill someone before we arrest him? Why not prevent the crime if we know it's going to happen? Because we've never said it was illegal to merely believe anything. Everything in our law system is based on actions.
I don't know if true Islam is about murder. And, even if it is, I don't know if it would be right to make its mere belief and practice a crime. But I do know that if Islam was illegal and all Muslims were deported, our country would be in much less danger of a terrorist attack.
Until I find more answers,
Edmond the Hun
Movie Review: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (4 of 5)
I was a little apprehensive about this movie, afraid that Tim and Johnny would ruin a classic book and movie. But they didn't. While not perfect, they've created a very exciting, enjoyable, and entertaining film.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is rather dichotomous in its approach to the book. On the one hand, it follows it much more closely than the original, including or correcting several scenes in wonderful interpretations, and adding nothing stupid. On the other hand, it makes great changes to the character and history of Willy Wonka, and it greatly screws up the ending.
The overall production is fantastic, which is no surprise, considering Tim Burton's long line of credits. Great casting for everyone, including all of Charlie's family as well as the other four children. The factory itself is a work of art, creatively creating all the random elements of the chocolate-producing arena. And while the special effects aren't breathtaking, everything is fun and bright and real-looking, from the blueberry Violet to the squirrels to the great glass elevator. It's just great eye-candy (pun intended). Upon learning that all the Oompa Loompas were played by one person, I was worried that it would come off as creepy, but it just made it all the more entertaining. Deep Roy (whoever that is) produces lots of laughs with his antics.
Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka is predictably eccentric and hilariously odd, a perfect match for Wonka's personality. His off-handed coldness disappointed some critics, forgetting that that's the whole point of his character. Random, impulsive, having no regard for the children---that's part of who he is. Yet I still think they took it a little too far. By giving him short cropped hair and a high voice, he unfortunately seemed girly or gay at times, and the Michael Jackson comparisons induced by the sunglasses aren't flattering. Still, he is far more amusing than frightening. The addition of Wonka's childhood flashbacks have been criticized as well, but for the most part they were interesting and explanatory, a book-to-movie change that actually works.
The ending was also troublesome in that it skewered the theme. The main point of the books was that it's not good to be greedy, selfish, or watch TV all day. Apparently Hollywood was too afraid to preach these morals, leaving that merely to the lyrics of the Oompa Loompa songs that mixed with cool sounds, flashing lights, and fun techno dancing (quite entertaining, actually). Instead, they turned the ending into a happy feel-good thing by having Wonka join Charlie's family, since he never really had one. How touching. The importance of family is certainly a value that needs preaching, but it felt contrived and just didn't go along with the rest of the movie---the other kids failed because they were brats, not because they didn't have a loving family.
But maybe I'm just being too picky. It's a kid's movie about chocolate, for goodness' sake. And at least it doesn't surrender anything to all that low-carb, low-calorie, low-fat, low-everything diet craze that I'm so sick of by now. Chocolate is still chocolate, and it still tastes good. Charlie will entertain you and make you laugh, at the same time reminding you that family is important and that always getting what you want isn't. It will also make you hungry.
Edmond the Hun
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is rather dichotomous in its approach to the book. On the one hand, it follows it much more closely than the original, including or correcting several scenes in wonderful interpretations, and adding nothing stupid. On the other hand, it makes great changes to the character and history of Willy Wonka, and it greatly screws up the ending.
The overall production is fantastic, which is no surprise, considering Tim Burton's long line of credits. Great casting for everyone, including all of Charlie's family as well as the other four children. The factory itself is a work of art, creatively creating all the random elements of the chocolate-producing arena. And while the special effects aren't breathtaking, everything is fun and bright and real-looking, from the blueberry Violet to the squirrels to the great glass elevator. It's just great eye-candy (pun intended). Upon learning that all the Oompa Loompas were played by one person, I was worried that it would come off as creepy, but it just made it all the more entertaining. Deep Roy (whoever that is) produces lots of laughs with his antics.
Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka is predictably eccentric and hilariously odd, a perfect match for Wonka's personality. His off-handed coldness disappointed some critics, forgetting that that's the whole point of his character. Random, impulsive, having no regard for the children---that's part of who he is. Yet I still think they took it a little too far. By giving him short cropped hair and a high voice, he unfortunately seemed girly or gay at times, and the Michael Jackson comparisons induced by the sunglasses aren't flattering. Still, he is far more amusing than frightening. The addition of Wonka's childhood flashbacks have been criticized as well, but for the most part they were interesting and explanatory, a book-to-movie change that actually works.
The ending was also troublesome in that it skewered the theme. The main point of the books was that it's not good to be greedy, selfish, or watch TV all day. Apparently Hollywood was too afraid to preach these morals, leaving that merely to the lyrics of the Oompa Loompa songs that mixed with cool sounds, flashing lights, and fun techno dancing (quite entertaining, actually). Instead, they turned the ending into a happy feel-good thing by having Wonka join Charlie's family, since he never really had one. How touching. The importance of family is certainly a value that needs preaching, but it felt contrived and just didn't go along with the rest of the movie---the other kids failed because they were brats, not because they didn't have a loving family.
But maybe I'm just being too picky. It's a kid's movie about chocolate, for goodness' sake. And at least it doesn't surrender anything to all that low-carb, low-calorie, low-fat, low-everything diet craze that I'm so sick of by now. Chocolate is still chocolate, and it still tastes good. Charlie will entertain you and make you laugh, at the same time reminding you that family is important and that always getting what you want isn't. It will also make you hungry.
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Prison Reform Needed Badly
We've always known that too much money went into keeping prisoners happy. I talked about it a little when Martha Stewart was under "house arrest" in her million dollar home or whatever the mansion was worth. Just recently I heard on talk radio that it costs somewhere from $20,000 to $35,000 a year per prisoner. That's outrageous! But in case there are still those who doubt that US prisons aren't too expensive...
I've said before, although unfortunately there's no written record of it in this blog, that our prisons are so nice that people in financial trouble might as well do something illegal instead of trying to survive on their own.
Well, it's finally happened.
William Crutchfield shot his mailman seven times. He raced to the police station and turned himself in. He was heavily in debt and wanted to commit a federal crime so he could go to prison and get three square meals a day and have nothing to worry about. This is a smart and clever man. He recognized the problem in our prison system and took advantage of it.
Too much of our tax dollars are wasted in keeping prisoners happy, healthy, available to video games, the Internet, and anything else they could possibly want. Someone has finally directly taken advantage of it and exposed its flaw.
Too bad it took something this drastic to bring about a change. And yet I doubt there will be any changes made at all...
Edmond the Hun
I've said before, although unfortunately there's no written record of it in this blog, that our prisons are so nice that people in financial trouble might as well do something illegal instead of trying to survive on their own.
Well, it's finally happened.
William Crutchfield shot his mailman seven times. He raced to the police station and turned himself in. He was heavily in debt and wanted to commit a federal crime so he could go to prison and get three square meals a day and have nothing to worry about. This is a smart and clever man. He recognized the problem in our prison system and took advantage of it.
Too much of our tax dollars are wasted in keeping prisoners happy, healthy, available to video games, the Internet, and anything else they could possibly want. Someone has finally directly taken advantage of it and exposed its flaw.
Too bad it took something this drastic to bring about a change. And yet I doubt there will be any changes made at all...
Edmond the Hun
Monday, July 11, 2005
The Constitution: Under Construction
Since O'Connor retired from the Supreme Court, the journalists and columnists have been unloading nonstop about the Constitution and the Supreme Court and the problems therein. Here's the root of the issue:
The Constitution is not very specific about a lot of things. So when the Supreme Court has to apply it to a specific case, it is often unfortunately ambiguous. To make matters worse, our society has evolved so much in these two hundred years that even if the Constitution had been very specific, it still wouldn't cover a large part of the Supreme Court cases today.
So what do the justices do? When it's not black and white, we've moved out of absolutes and stepped into a matter of opinion.
This opinion thing creates a flaw out of the provision that a simple majority of nine selected (not elected) people can determine the meaning of the Constituition when applied to a specific case. If the decision was 9-0, even if it was an opinion, there might not be too much controversy over whether they made the right decision. But, oh, when the Supreme Court decides 5-4!
How do we know that that's the right decision, that it's the correct interpretation of the law? If one of the 5 voters switched, than the complete opposite decision would be made. There are a hundred different scenarios for that possibility, and the fact that it could happen so easily shows that any 5-4 decision is unreliable. How can five people set in stone the meaning of the Constitution if almost as many other people disagree? It's like it's all up in the air. Since there's so much disagreement, how can we be sure that the 5 side has made the right decision?
It's a fundamental flaw. It worked before because Supreme Court justices didn't link themselves to parties and ideologies, and were actually more concerned about what the Constitution said. Now every potential nominee is labeled as "conservative" or "liberal." It's not a group of people interperting the Constitution anymore. It's a nine-member congress that the President can't veto.
How do we solve this, then? I don't exactly know. I know this much: when there is a case that the Constitution does not adequately cover, whether by being too general or too outdated, then it is something for the people or their elected representatives to decide, not nine justices without check or balance. So there has to be some way to move these cases into the public arena, or at least the Congressional arena, for debate and discussion that results in action. Not only does this increase of involvement ensure that the fate of the nation is not hinged upon five people's opinions, but it ensures that democracy is still a part of our so-called democracy.
I haven't worked out specifics on when such transfer should happen or how it should work, but I know that, if done right, it would be much better than the system we have now. The Constitution needs amending.
Edmond the Hun
The Constitution is not very specific about a lot of things. So when the Supreme Court has to apply it to a specific case, it is often unfortunately ambiguous. To make matters worse, our society has evolved so much in these two hundred years that even if the Constitution had been very specific, it still wouldn't cover a large part of the Supreme Court cases today.
So what do the justices do? When it's not black and white, we've moved out of absolutes and stepped into a matter of opinion.
This opinion thing creates a flaw out of the provision that a simple majority of nine selected (not elected) people can determine the meaning of the Constituition when applied to a specific case. If the decision was 9-0, even if it was an opinion, there might not be too much controversy over whether they made the right decision. But, oh, when the Supreme Court decides 5-4!
How do we know that that's the right decision, that it's the correct interpretation of the law? If one of the 5 voters switched, than the complete opposite decision would be made. There are a hundred different scenarios for that possibility, and the fact that it could happen so easily shows that any 5-4 decision is unreliable. How can five people set in stone the meaning of the Constitution if almost as many other people disagree? It's like it's all up in the air. Since there's so much disagreement, how can we be sure that the 5 side has made the right decision?
It's a fundamental flaw. It worked before because Supreme Court justices didn't link themselves to parties and ideologies, and were actually more concerned about what the Constitution said. Now every potential nominee is labeled as "conservative" or "liberal." It's not a group of people interperting the Constitution anymore. It's a nine-member congress that the President can't veto.
How do we solve this, then? I don't exactly know. I know this much: when there is a case that the Constitution does not adequately cover, whether by being too general or too outdated, then it is something for the people or their elected representatives to decide, not nine justices without check or balance. So there has to be some way to move these cases into the public arena, or at least the Congressional arena, for debate and discussion that results in action. Not only does this increase of involvement ensure that the fate of the nation is not hinged upon five people's opinions, but it ensures that democracy is still a part of our so-called democracy.
I haven't worked out specifics on when such transfer should happen or how it should work, but I know that, if done right, it would be much better than the system we have now. The Constitution needs amending.
Edmond the Hun
Capitalism In Action: The Employee Discount
Ah, the wonder of capitalism! When one business offers a special deal for a certain product, competing businesses that offer the same product have to do the same thing, or risk losing customers. If one cell phone company offers free nights and weekends, they all have to. If one fast-food restaurant offers a low-carb salad, they all have to. It'd be a lot easier if one company had a monopoly on a product, but then it wouldn't be as fun, and they wouldn't have to offer special deals. That's part of capitalism.
GM decided to boost lagging auto sales by giving their employee discount to everyone, forcing Ford and Chevrolet to offer similar packages. This would be like McDonald's cutting all their prices in half. And it appears to be working---their sales are up.
But the question no one seems to be asking: If everyone gets the employee discount, what do the employees get?
Edmond the Hun
GM decided to boost lagging auto sales by giving their employee discount to everyone, forcing Ford and Chevrolet to offer similar packages. This would be like McDonald's cutting all their prices in half. And it appears to be working---their sales are up.
But the question no one seems to be asking: If everyone gets the employee discount, what do the employees get?
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, July 07, 2005
The Truth About Terrorism
So terrorists have struck again, jolting us again out of our supposed world of safety that we naively fall back into time after time. This time it's a subway in Great Britain.
There are two truths about terrorism.
Truth number one is that it is impossible to stop. No matter how hard we try, terrorism can not be stopped. If someone wants to blow up a subway, all they have to do is build a bomb, catch a ride on the subway, and set it off. To stop the bomb from getting on the subway, you would have to personally search every single passenger's baggage, or use a foolproof machine. Even that wouldn't guarantee detection. And who says the terrorist has to get on the subway? What if he just sets it off at the station? Now you have to check the baggage of every single person that enters the station, whether they board a subway or not. But what if he sets it off just outside the station? Now you have to check the baggage of every single person out in public, which is simply impossible. The only way such a plan is even remotely conceivable involves complete video surveillance of everywhere, and even that would only guarantee detection, not prevention.
Terrorism is impossible to stop, but even more so in a democracy or republic. Security is inversely proportional to privacy; to add to one, you must subtract from the other. If people are getting worked up about a Chicago security system that can detect gunshots, just think how they would react to a complete, all-encompassing system. To have total security, you must have no privacy, and that is unacceptable in today's society.
But the inevitability of terrorism leads many to abandon truth number two: Terrorism must always be fought against. We are still required to do everything we can to prevent it from spreading further and from happening again. That is why we cannot leave Afghanistan or Iraq until we achieve victory. Whether or not you believe Iraq was a threat in the past, there are obviously terrorists there now, and it's our duty to fight them.
If you had a hose on the side of your house and your neighbor's house was on fire, would you say that it wasn't your problem and you shouldn't waste your time dealing with it? No! You would turn on your hose and extinguish whatever you could! Likewise, the problems in Iraq are our problems. There is no reason to pull out of Iraq. There is no reason to say it's not our responsibility. We are all descended from one man. Iraqi lives are not worth less than American lives. If a human's life is endangered, it is the responsibility of every person---who is in the position of defending it---to defend it!
Terrorism, like sin, is impossible to prevent. But, like sin, we keep fighting it anyway, striving for the perfection we know we can't reach.
Edmond the Hun
There are two truths about terrorism.
Truth number one is that it is impossible to stop. No matter how hard we try, terrorism can not be stopped. If someone wants to blow up a subway, all they have to do is build a bomb, catch a ride on the subway, and set it off. To stop the bomb from getting on the subway, you would have to personally search every single passenger's baggage, or use a foolproof machine. Even that wouldn't guarantee detection. And who says the terrorist has to get on the subway? What if he just sets it off at the station? Now you have to check the baggage of every single person that enters the station, whether they board a subway or not. But what if he sets it off just outside the station? Now you have to check the baggage of every single person out in public, which is simply impossible. The only way such a plan is even remotely conceivable involves complete video surveillance of everywhere, and even that would only guarantee detection, not prevention.
Terrorism is impossible to stop, but even more so in a democracy or republic. Security is inversely proportional to privacy; to add to one, you must subtract from the other. If people are getting worked up about a Chicago security system that can detect gunshots, just think how they would react to a complete, all-encompassing system. To have total security, you must have no privacy, and that is unacceptable in today's society.
But the inevitability of terrorism leads many to abandon truth number two: Terrorism must always be fought against. We are still required to do everything we can to prevent it from spreading further and from happening again. That is why we cannot leave Afghanistan or Iraq until we achieve victory. Whether or not you believe Iraq was a threat in the past, there are obviously terrorists there now, and it's our duty to fight them.
If you had a hose on the side of your house and your neighbor's house was on fire, would you say that it wasn't your problem and you shouldn't waste your time dealing with it? No! You would turn on your hose and extinguish whatever you could! Likewise, the problems in Iraq are our problems. There is no reason to pull out of Iraq. There is no reason to say it's not our responsibility. We are all descended from one man. Iraqi lives are not worth less than American lives. If a human's life is endangered, it is the responsibility of every person---who is in the position of defending it---to defend it!
Terrorism, like sin, is impossible to prevent. But, like sin, we keep fighting it anyway, striving for the perfection we know we can't reach.
Edmond the Hun
Book Look: Life of Pi
I'm 32 pages into Life of Pi by Yann Martel. It's called "a novel," in the "fiction" section, but it's presented as based on a true story and as the closest the author could possibly get to what actually happened. So far, it's unique and promising. It's written from a character's first-person view, but not in a normal fictional narrative. It is more like an autobiography or memoirs, giving the impression of an older person looking back on his life explaining things that affected it---an "uncle" that taught him to swim, memories of the zoo his father owned, humurous little anecdotes---hardly a novel in its conventional sense.
Pages 15-19 could stand alone as a short essay about the misconception that animals don't like living in zoos and would rather be out in the wild, where it's better and more natural for them. It's a very convincing argument, too:
"In a zoo, we do for animals what we have done for ourselves with houses: we bring together in a small space what in the wild is spread out... A house is a compressed territory where our basic needs can be fulfilled close by and safely. A sound zoo enclosure is the equivalent for an animal... Such an enclosure is subjectively neither better nor worse for an animal than its condition in the wild; so long as it fulfills the animal's needs, a territory, natural or constructed, simply is, without judgment, a given, like the spot on a leopard..."
Interesting stuff. I just hope it doesn't get too bogged down with essay-like tangents and sticks with the main story. That's why I couldn't finish Moby Dick. I don't care about how many species of whales are and what their differences are! I want to see them hunt the whale! But so far, the tangents in Life of Pi are both interesting and relatory, and I believe I am about to get to the main part of the story.
Edmond the Hun
Pages 15-19 could stand alone as a short essay about the misconception that animals don't like living in zoos and would rather be out in the wild, where it's better and more natural for them. It's a very convincing argument, too:
"In a zoo, we do for animals what we have done for ourselves with houses: we bring together in a small space what in the wild is spread out... A house is a compressed territory where our basic needs can be fulfilled close by and safely. A sound zoo enclosure is the equivalent for an animal... Such an enclosure is subjectively neither better nor worse for an animal than its condition in the wild; so long as it fulfills the animal's needs, a territory, natural or constructed, simply is, without judgment, a given, like the spot on a leopard..."
Interesting stuff. I just hope it doesn't get too bogged down with essay-like tangents and sticks with the main story. That's why I couldn't finish Moby Dick. I don't care about how many species of whales are and what their differences are! I want to see them hunt the whale! But so far, the tangents in Life of Pi are both interesting and relatory, and I believe I am about to get to the main part of the story.
Edmond the Hun
Monday, July 04, 2005
Sad and Scary: Clinic For Online Addiction
This is so sad and scary...
China is a country that is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in many aspects, from a greater demand for oil (which increases prices for everyone, including us) to their level of technology. And those online video games and chat rooms affect their youth just as much as it does us, if not more.
Apparently, these young people are so addicted that China has opened its "first officially licensed clinic for Internet addiction." In other words, people are spending so much time online that they need help---and they're getting it.
Listening to these kids sounds like they're druggies or drinkers. Read this paragraph from the article:
"In school I didn't pay attention when teachers were talking," one 12-year-old said. "All I could do was think about playing the next game. Playing made me happy, I forgot my problems." He spent four days in an Internet cafe, barely eating or sleeping.
Four days! I'm amazed that someone would be stupid enough to do that! But I know it's not just in China. I'm sure there could be twice as many stories about teenagers in the United States who could use this clinic. It's just so sad that it even has to exist.
People have always wanted to escape. But instead of just drugs and alchohol, now there's the Internet to help you do that. What is this world coming to?
(Source: www.canada.com)
Edmond the Hun
China is a country that is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in many aspects, from a greater demand for oil (which increases prices for everyone, including us) to their level of technology. And those online video games and chat rooms affect their youth just as much as it does us, if not more.
Apparently, these young people are so addicted that China has opened its "first officially licensed clinic for Internet addiction." In other words, people are spending so much time online that they need help---and they're getting it.
Listening to these kids sounds like they're druggies or drinkers. Read this paragraph from the article:
"In school I didn't pay attention when teachers were talking," one 12-year-old said. "All I could do was think about playing the next game. Playing made me happy, I forgot my problems." He spent four days in an Internet cafe, barely eating or sleeping.
Four days! I'm amazed that someone would be stupid enough to do that! But I know it's not just in China. I'm sure there could be twice as many stories about teenagers in the United States who could use this clinic. It's just so sad that it even has to exist.
People have always wanted to escape. But instead of just drugs and alchohol, now there's the Internet to help you do that. What is this world coming to?
(Source: www.canada.com)
Edmond the Hun
Friday, July 01, 2005
Current Events: Revenge of the Homeowner
This is amazing. Logan Darrow Clements is attempting to get the rights to build a hotel on the property of one of the Supreme Court Justices who voted for the decision that it's constitutional to build things like hotels on private property if it will bring in more tax dollars.
Ingenious! The Supreme Court has infringed on the rights of private homeowners, and Mr. Clements is bringing it right back at them by applying the policy to one of their own homes. He has to get a majority vote from some kind of five-man council, but I don't see how they could not give him the rights to do this. The Supreme Court has declared it legal! The only way the justice could save his house is by becoming more of a bad guy---things like intimidation and bribery, unless he can find a way to prove that his house will provide more tax dollars than a hotel.
Mr. Clements is kind of a weirdo---he's an anti-government extremist who supports Ayn Rand's philosophies (he even wants to provide a copy of her novel Atlas Shrugged in every hotel room instead of the classic Gideon Bible). I obviously don't support everything this man stands for, but I certainly support his attempt to show the Supreme Court justices the reality of their recent decision.
I'll be rooting for him all the way, and keeping you updated as well.
Edmond the Hun
Ingenious! The Supreme Court has infringed on the rights of private homeowners, and Mr. Clements is bringing it right back at them by applying the policy to one of their own homes. He has to get a majority vote from some kind of five-man council, but I don't see how they could not give him the rights to do this. The Supreme Court has declared it legal! The only way the justice could save his house is by becoming more of a bad guy---things like intimidation and bribery, unless he can find a way to prove that his house will provide more tax dollars than a hotel.
Mr. Clements is kind of a weirdo---he's an anti-government extremist who supports Ayn Rand's philosophies (he even wants to provide a copy of her novel Atlas Shrugged in every hotel room instead of the classic Gideon Bible). I obviously don't support everything this man stands for, but I certainly support his attempt to show the Supreme Court justices the reality of their recent decision.
I'll be rooting for him all the way, and keeping you updated as well.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Movie Review: War of the Worlds (4 of 5)
War of the Worlds was incredible. I know, I know, alien invasion movies are so old and stupid, why bother seeing another one, right? Wrong. For one thing, this isn't your typical alien invasion story, the chief difference being that humans don't figure out how to stop the aliens. For another thing, most alien invasion movies are low-budget, bad, cheesy, and just trying to entertain you with violence, and this is none of the above. But more importantly, this story was based on an 1898 novel by H. G. Wells---which may have been the first alien invasion story of all time. It's all the other stories that are the copycats and reruns. This is original.
I have both read the book and seen the 50's version of the movie, but, suprisingly enough, I have little to complain about the transformation. It was modernized yet again, but it was done very well. (And this time the aliens weren't accompanied by radioactive hums and obviously fake heat blasts) A lot was changed, obviously, but the fundamental plot remained the same. And some of the changes actually made things better. For example, they added two children to the main character. Instead of just trying to survive on his own, he has two kids to worry about---an accurately portrayed rebellious teenager and a claustrophobic vulnerable little girl (skillfully played by the ubiquitous Dakota Fanning). This adds to the tension.
I do have a few nitpicky problems. The movie didn't explain enough. They don't mention that the sticky red patterns are supposed to be Martian ferns (my girlfriend eerily thought it must be human blood). The story is told wholly from Cruise's perspective, so you don't know what the government's trying to do to stop these things (contrary to the 50's version), although you get a few glimpses of tanks scrolling by. I thought they could have done a better job explaining how the aliens were defeated. The narration at the beginning and the end was informative, and I'm glad they left the word "God" in there, but it was random, because that was the only place there was any narration. And... well, I don't want to give anything away, but when a character survives something, it has to be obvious how they didn't die, or at least implied that there was a possible way they could have survived, or at the very least explained. Otherwise it's not believable.
But overall, War of the Worlds was a very good movie. The plot sequence and unfolding of events was smooth and carefully done. Spielberg intended the aliens to be a modern symbol of terrorists (which I think is a mistaken analogy), but the movie is better at exploring questions of how far one must go to survive, even if it means theft or murder, and the importance of obeying your parents even if you don't know exactly why at that exact moment (and the ignorance of trying to do your own thing). The special effects were first-rate, but a different first-rate than Star Wars. Star Wars was cool because made-up ships are flying around and exploding. War of the Worlds is cool because streets are cracking and airplaines are crashing and buildings are exploding---these things really exist, but it looks real, like it's actually happening. And there is plenty of tension and suspense---it's pretty scary and creepy.
War of the Worlds is much better than the cliche alien invasion movie. It's very well done, and it's based on an original story, and yet it's a rare instance in which the movie is as at least as good as the book. Read the book, watch the 50's version, and see the new one---they're all worth it.
Edmond the Hun
I have both read the book and seen the 50's version of the movie, but, suprisingly enough, I have little to complain about the transformation. It was modernized yet again, but it was done very well. (And this time the aliens weren't accompanied by radioactive hums and obviously fake heat blasts) A lot was changed, obviously, but the fundamental plot remained the same. And some of the changes actually made things better. For example, they added two children to the main character. Instead of just trying to survive on his own, he has two kids to worry about---an accurately portrayed rebellious teenager and a claustrophobic vulnerable little girl (skillfully played by the ubiquitous Dakota Fanning). This adds to the tension.
I do have a few nitpicky problems. The movie didn't explain enough. They don't mention that the sticky red patterns are supposed to be Martian ferns (my girlfriend eerily thought it must be human blood). The story is told wholly from Cruise's perspective, so you don't know what the government's trying to do to stop these things (contrary to the 50's version), although you get a few glimpses of tanks scrolling by. I thought they could have done a better job explaining how the aliens were defeated. The narration at the beginning and the end was informative, and I'm glad they left the word "God" in there, but it was random, because that was the only place there was any narration. And... well, I don't want to give anything away, but when a character survives something, it has to be obvious how they didn't die, or at least implied that there was a possible way they could have survived, or at the very least explained. Otherwise it's not believable.
But overall, War of the Worlds was a very good movie. The plot sequence and unfolding of events was smooth and carefully done. Spielberg intended the aliens to be a modern symbol of terrorists (which I think is a mistaken analogy), but the movie is better at exploring questions of how far one must go to survive, even if it means theft or murder, and the importance of obeying your parents even if you don't know exactly why at that exact moment (and the ignorance of trying to do your own thing). The special effects were first-rate, but a different first-rate than Star Wars. Star Wars was cool because made-up ships are flying around and exploding. War of the Worlds is cool because streets are cracking and airplaines are crashing and buildings are exploding---these things really exist, but it looks real, like it's actually happening. And there is plenty of tension and suspense---it's pretty scary and creepy.
War of the Worlds is much better than the cliche alien invasion movie. It's very well done, and it's based on an original story, and yet it's a rare instance in which the movie is as at least as good as the book. Read the book, watch the 50's version, and see the new one---they're all worth it.
Edmond the Hun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)