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

My Life: Bowling

I am not a good bowler. Today I bowled a 68 and a 69. One spare. No strikes.

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

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

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

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

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