... and now for something completely different.

Girl Power

2012-02-02T12:31:00.000-08:00

What does a Western set in 1845 on the Oregon Trail have to do with a modern action thriller, you may ask? More than you think, I say. I had intended on writing two reviews but in a weak moment, I thought I could save some time and appear clever by comparing Meek's Cutoff with Steven Soderburgh's Haywire. How successful I am remains to be seen. The success of the movies is not in question. Both are outstanding.

Meek's Cutoff is based on a true story of a group of settlers led by Stephen Meek (played brilliantly by Bruce Greenwood), their guide. He's prone to bragging and general nuttiness and the band of weary travellers eventually figure out he may not have any idea where they are going. The trip that was supposed to take a couple of weeks stretches over a month. They're almost out of water and in treacherous lands.

Some might consider Meek's to be slow, but I believe it is for effect. The deliberate nature of the narrative builds tension and anxiety in both the characters and the observer. Being in the 1800's, there is a definite hierarchy of decision-making in the group, with the males ostensibly taking the lead. The male members of the group converse among themselves, the females the same. In one of the most effective plot devices, the conversations of the males are often in heard in the background by the females. But it is done faintly so that the movie watcher is made to feel like the women, barely able to hear what they are saying. I found myself often trying to turn up the volume (was on Netflix) just to hear what they were saying. It was a bit maddening and made me feel anxious. And, I believe, that was exactly the director's intent.

After endless meandering, no clear directing by Meek, and with water quickly running out, tensions rise to the point that the lead female, Emily Tetherow, played by the always fantastic Michelle Williams, takes things into her own hands. I won't say how, as that would give away a bit too much, but it is literal, symbolic and forceful all at once. Besides the previously mentioned Greenwood and Williams, the cast is capably filled by Will Patton and Paul Dano, among others. Dano (There Will Be Blood) and Williams (Brokeback Mountain) have a bit of experience in the Western genre, but the revelation is the virtually unrecognizable Greenwood. Usually playing clean-shaven, reserved and authoritative roles (Presidents a couple of times, Capt. Pike in Star Trek), he is positively wild and woolly here. I recommend this movie. Grade: B+

Haywire, with MMA veteran Gina Carano in the lead role of secret agent for hire Mallory Kane, was another pleasant surprise. Carano has had a couple of bit roles, but this is her first starring vehicle. As you would expect from a non-actor, this is not a Shakespearean role exactly, but it doesn't need to be. Soderbergh plays to her strengths ... a cool demeanor, physicality, great fighting ability, and, let's face it, she's not harsh on the eyes.

The details and intricacies of the plot are not nearly as important as the set-pieces for Carano's action. The plot does enough to carry Carano around to different places/countries and to different scene-chewing baddies: Ewan McGregor as her "boss", Michael Fassbender as a fellow agent, and Mathieu Kassovitz (Amelie) and Antonio Banderas as a couple of diplomatic string-pullers. Michael Douglas, Channing Tatum, and Bill Paxton all capably fill roles as her allies.

Movie watchers, and Americans in general, are idiots. As a rule, they are unappreciative of nuance and incapable of picking up plot points unless they are spoonfed them. For this reason, Haywire is the odd action movie more appreciated by the critics than the general audience (a point well made at Antimatter's blog). Perhaps misreading the TV ads, movie-goers expected an all-action movie. Thankfully, that is not what Haywire is. It's not that it doesn't have action ... it's that it is not go-go-go and it is not cartoonish. The action grows out of the plot.

One of my favorite scenes is after Mallory and Fassbender's character have left the party and she already knows of the doublecross. And I'm pretty sure he knows she knows. But they play it coolly. They are showing every sign of a normal loving couple returning home but there is a tightly coiled tension awaiting that moment when they get in the room and he will attack.
The strength of the scene (and the movie) is as much about the anticipation of action as the action itself.

Haywire has a lot of the usual Soderbergh elements: a quirky jazz soundtrack, clever dialogue, and cinematography digitally filmed almost exclusively by Soderbergh himself. Like most good directors (and even some bad ones), you could guess who the director was even if you didn't already know. But in the case of Soderbergh, that's not a negative. I recommend this movie. Grade: B+

For some more takes on Haywire, also check out Journal Wunelle and his review: Root Canal, and also the previously mentioned review at Matter - Antimatter: Annihilation

Now, to tie it all in, here is where I believe these two movies share some thematic elements. Both movies are spare with no effects and infrequent dialogue. Both have a strong female lead who initially take direction from males of dubious intent -- Greenwood's Meek and Ewan McGregor's Kenneth. Through adventures that are either ill-conceived or outright devious, those females discover the duplicity of the males. At that point, they take control of their futures and proceed to an ambiguous and unresolved end. But the destination, ultimately, is not as important as the path and the decision they made. Both have strong female protagonists that would be dangerous to underestimate or as the character Kenneth says in Haywire:

"Don’t think of her as a woman. That would be a mistake."

2012-01-29T01:51:00.000-08:00

Mirror Image

2012-01-18T18:48:00.000-08:00

"James Miller has just written a book on the value of a copy versus the original work of art. At a book reading, a woman gives him her address, and the next day they meet and take a country-side drive to a local Italian village. Here, they discuss various works of art found in the town, and also the nature of their relationship - which gets both more revealed and concealed as the day progresses." -- from IMDb

Starring a British man and French woman, set in Italy and directed and written by an Iranian director. Dialogue in 3 different languages. Certified Copy is not your movie if you're not into foreign films. And not your film if you're not into talky dissertations on the nature of art and relationships and the perception of each.

What is really happening with this pair? Are they a couple, do they know each other, are they playing a role? Like in art, does it matter if it's the real thing if you don't know? That's the main conceit of the movie ... that their relationship is the living embodiment of the artistic/philosophical point that Miller is making in his opening speech.

Juliette Binoche, as always, is luminous. But you also get quite a bit of anger and humor out of her as well, She flips in and out of the three languages (French, Italian, English) with ease, funny in all of them. Miller is played by William Shimell, a British opera singer who has acted in only a few movies. He's fine here, but his is not the meaty role that Binoche's Elle is.

Like a lot of foreign and independent movies, Certified Copy plays more like performance art than your typical Hollywood movie. There is no action and the viewer is given a lot of the responsibility to fill in the blanks. If you don't pick up what they are trying to do, it can be confusing and boring. If I hadn't already heard several reviews of the movie prior to viewing it, I cannot guarantee that I would have caught on. Even knowing the catch, I can only say that it was mildly effective. Therefore, I would have to give this a tepid rating. Certified Copy is currently on Netflix Instant if you want to check it out. Grade: C+

Focus on the hypocrites

2012-01-14T21:30:00.000-08:00

As if we need any kind of confirmation that network television is a bottomless abyss bereft of either morality or courage, tonight in the 2nd quarter of the New England Patriots - Denver Broncos, CBS aired a Focus on the Family "pro-life" commercial where a series of small children recited John 3:16:

It was not too big of a surprise that Focus on the Family chose this game to run the ad considering that the 2nd coming of Christ was present, Tim Tebow. That a mainstream network would actually run such drivel by a hate group IS.

Would CBS have allowed advertisements by Planned Parenthood or an atheist/humanist group? How about a Muslim group? Every time I hear a Christian complain about how much they are persecuted or how they are not allowed to express themselves, I get sick. They are the forever favored majority with the Napoleon complex.

And don't even get me started about using small children to make this advertisement. Richard Dawkins has often made the point that religious indoctrination is tantamount to child abuse. Children are not born religious.

Final score: 45-10 Patriots over the Broncos. Apparently even God is sick of hearing about Tim Tebow and Focus on the Family.

Religion/Politics

2012-01-13T14:21:00.000-08:00

Something from Nothing?

2012-01-11T20:11:00.000-08:00

Yes, I'm cool. Admit it. I'm getting to see Richard Dawkins for the 3rd time! Plus, Lawrence Krauss. I'm going to wait around to get Mr. Dawkins to sign one of my books this time.

We come from the land of the ice and snow ...

2012-01-08T01:07:00.000-08:00

Sitting down to review The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I had to get myself in the mood. How better to do it than with a Nine Inch Nails Genius mix in Itunes. Of course, it's Trent Reznor (of NIN) and Atticus Ross that do the soundtrack and whose cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song (with Karen O on vocals) begins the movie:

Beginning with a weird title sequence reminiscent of movies of the 50's and 60's, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo jumps right out of the gate. That sequence reminded me a lot of, ironically (because Daniel Craig's in this movie), the elaborate ones you would get with most James Bond movies. All black, in a medium of what appears to be oil, the characters come in and out of focus with occasional flames. Aesthetically, the result is effective in setting the scene and getting one a bit on edge. I listened to an interview on NPR's Fresh Air where Trent Reznor explained how they wanted to evoke both the literal and emotional cold of Sweden and the subject matter.

Just adapting an immensely popular book series, from the late Swedish author Steig Larsson, you are already under a lot of pressure. Add to that a well-received series of Swedish films that many people have already seen. Most directors would probably not take on the challenge. David Fincher did. His history has shown that he does not shy away from the dark side of human nature. Quite the opposite. His movies Se7en and Fight Club are iconic and went a long way towards defining what these type of movies should look like. They are highly stylized and if I had any criticism of this movie was that Fincher largely reigned in that tendency.

My wife liked this adaptation quite a bit more than the Swedish film. Like me, she had read the book prior to watching either, but she still found the Swedish adaptation hard to follow and not as well-paced. I really liked the Swedish films, particular the performance of Noomi Rapace in the role of Lisbeth Salander. While differing a bit from the description of the character in the book, Rapace owned the role and there was a rather large group of people pushing for her to reprise the role in the American film(s). Fincher chose American actress Rooney Mara for the role instead. Mara, wisely, did not try to recreate Rapace's performance.

It's unfair to try and compare the films and performances but it is the elephant in the room. If you don't acknowledge it's there, then you are not being honest about how it might inform your reaction to the new movie. Filmspotting does a great film review podcast that I recently listened to that touches on this point a bit. There are reveals in both the book and the Swedish movie that are surprising the first time you see or read them, but when you know they are coming up, the effect is not the same. That's not Fincher's fault. I think his vision of the film is great, but I think that it would be viewed even better if you had not seen the Swedish film.

The casting in the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is impeccable. We've already mentioned Mara, and Daniel Craig in the role of Mikael Blomkvist. Christopher Plummer does his usual fine work in the role of Henrik Vanger. Robin Wright Penn has always given understated performances and continues to do so in the role of Erika Berger, Blomquist's editing partner. Stellan Skarsgård, a Swedish actor that American audiences are already quite familiar with, plays Martin Vanger to great effect.

Because of the numerous times of seeing the original film and having read the book, I frequently have a hard time keeping the sequence and content of events straight in my head. But from my largely untrained eye, the specific instances where I saw Fincher straying from the source material:

- the location and manner in which the still living Harriet Vanger is found
- the exclusion of the short affair with Cecilia Vanger by Blomquist
- the nature and exact participants in the discovery of the past murders by Gottfried and Martin Vanger
- eliminating Blomkvist's time in prison
- additionally, there are a couple of things that do not happen until the 2nd book that are shown in this movie
- Salander having her computer stolen and then her attacking the thief (and her computer is broken in the process)

I have no major problems in any of the above cases. Eliminating the travel to Australia helps to keep the consistency in tone and location. The affair with Cecilia Vanger in the Swedish film is superfluous and does not propel the story forward in any way. Changing which discoveries were made together and which were made individually by Blomquist and Salander does not hurt the story, though I'm not positive why Fincher made this change. It may just be for pacing. Removing the time in prison is probably another case where the plot point really is not integral to the arc of the story.

On the subject of 2nd book plot points, I can't really criticize Fincher for incorporating items from the next book, when the director of the Swedish film, Niels Arden Oplev, did the same.

On the last item, I probably disagree with Fincher a bit. Being attacked by a group of punks establishes her victimization by males that is prevalent through her life. Giving her a more forward role in pursuing her assailant seems to get away from that. But I do understand why Fincher probably did it. He wanted to establish her willingness to stand up for herself. I just think it would be more effective to have that emotional release be during the confrontation with her guardian.

The strength of Fincher films is his evocation of mood. The color palette, the music, the pacing, weather, etc. all work together to bring about a certain feeling. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is no exception. While being less stylized, as I have previously mentioned, he still sets up shots that bring about feelings of dread and isolation. The snowy initial approach to the Vanger mansion reminded me of a Kubrick shot, most specifically The Shining. Kubrick liked to present perspective shots down a hall or road or space ship that tapered to a point far in the background. They were always spooky, as is Fincher's shot.

Though it's a long movie (2:38), it does not seem long, meaning Fincher has largely done his job. It entertains, establishes characters, solves the initial mysteries and sets up the series for the sequels one would expect to be made, whether Fincher will continue to helm them or not. Even though I'm a big fan of the source material and the Swedish films, I've never been one to hold something in such high regard that I will not be open to different interpretations. There is room in the rich world of Stieg Larsson for a different take. Grade: B+

For a great review of this film, please wander over to Ink Blot at Journal Wunelle

Christopher Hitchens: 1949 -2011

2011-12-15T21:14:00.000-08:00

A uniquely intelligent and witty man who informed many of my opinions of the last few years. In a time of anti-intellectual pride, he was not afraid to truly think about things.

And as he predicted and hoped, there was no deathbed conversion. He died as he lived, seeking truth.

He will be missed. I will miss him.

2011-12-02T23:24:00.000-08:00

Book Review: Darwin's Children

2011-11-20T00:19:00.000-08:00

Darwin's Radio is the second book by Greg Bear that I've read, The Forge of God being the first. I liked both as they are both good examples of my favorite type of sci-fi: near-future hard science fiction.

Set in the U.S. but with excursions to Europe, Darwin's Radio plays like a plague outbreak novel early on, not unlike The Hot Zone/Outbreak, and progresses to a more traditional science fiction later on.

The rapid spread of the endovirus SHEVA is seen as a typical, but deadly virus that seems to threaten a whole generation of newborns. The story is told through the actions of the scientists and researchers that would be involved in the containment of outbreaks. One of the primary scientists is an archaeologist who sees a link between a mummified family of neanderthals found in a cave in the mountains of Europe and the current "disease". Another is a research biologist who first sees that this may not actually be a disease but rather speciation ... the creation of a new species of human.

The reader can tell that Bear really researches his subject matter and if you are not careful, you can get buried by the minutiae of whatever he is writing about. In this case, evolutionary biology and infectious diseases. The premise is that evolution hasn't necessarily always been a gradual progression. In human history, and in current time in the case of this book, drastic changes have happened in as little as a single generation. It's a radical idea that has been realized in lesser species, but not in humans (as far as we know). That would explain some of those gaps in the fossil record.

Now Bear is not saying that this is really what can happen, and he goes out of his way in the afterward to explain that the biologists that he spoke to say as much. But he fills the story with enough details and plausible science, that the reader doesn't feel it is far-fetched. That suspension of disbelief is generally important for me and why I have always tended towards hard science fiction as opposed to fantasy. Explaining away things as "magic" can be a turn-off for me when reading fiction. Not always, however, as I obviously love Lord of the Rings and greatly enjoyed Harry Potter. But, in general, I like that foundation in science. Perhaps, it's the scientist/engineer educational background in me.

Darwin's Radio explores hot button topics of abortion, internment, the role of women and mothers in society, the government's role in outbreaks, religion and evolution, just to name a few. I like the book's exploration of how many different people (scientists, politicians, citizens) may do things that they feel are right but perhaps for the wrong reasons such as religion, fear, and intellectual pride.

Darwin's Radio won the Nebula and was nominated for the Hugo (sci-fi's most prestigious awards) in 2000. These accolades were well-deserved and I recommend this book. I own the book, but oddly enough, I read it electronically on my wife's Kindle. We've been checking out a lot of books through our local libraries' digital collections and I saw it listed there. Wanted to give her reader a test drive, I downloaded it. I have to say, despite still loving physical books, I thoroughly enjoy reading on the Kindle.

I also have this book's sequel, Darwin's Children, and will certainly read it soon while this one is still fresh in my memory.

Remember ...

2011-11-06T01:29:00.000-07:00

"I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you ... More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives ..." - V in V for Vendetta

Greed is not a virtue

2011-11-05T10:15:00.000-07:00

Greed is Not a Virtue by David Koren of Yes! Magazine

We humans are living out an epic morality play. For millennia humanity’s most celebrated spiritual teachers have taught that society works best and we all enjoy our greatest joy and fulfillment when we share, cooperate, and are honest in our dealings with one another.

But for the past few decades, this truth has been aggressively challenged by a faith called market fundamentalism—an immoral and counter-factual economic ideology that has assumed the status of a modern state religion. Its believers worship the God of money. Stock exchanges and global banks are their temples. They proclaim that everyone does best when we each seek to maximize our individual financial gain without regard to the consequences for others.

In the eyes of a market fundamentalist, to sacrifice profit for some presumed social or environmental good is immoral. The result is a public culture that proclaims greed is a virtue and sharing is a sin.

Having established control of the institutions of the economy, media, education, government, and even religion, market fundamentalists initiated a global social experiment to test their theory. The results are now in.

The prophets of the older faith traditions were right. Our common future depends on rediscovering their truth and redefining our public culture and governing institutions accordingly.

The following are some of the more visible elements of Wall Street’s global campaign of moral perversion.

It uses control of media outlets, advertising, and politicians to shape and spread a global culture of individualistic greed, material self-indulgence, ruthless competition, and moral irresponsibility.
Through the pursuit and celebration of financial gain at any cost, it provides role models for immoral behavior.
It undermines democracy and the legitimacy of government by buying politicians to do its bidding.
It uses student loan programs to get the best and brightest youth mired in debts they can repay only by selling themselves to jobs that serve Wall Street interests.
It buys up and monopolizes control of the world’s land and water resources in anticipation of extracting monopoly profits by charging what the market will bear as scarcity increases.
It uses its financial power and creative accounting skills to manipulate markets and obscure market signals, as when helping governments hide their debt or helping corporate CEOs hide their insider bets against the future of their own companies.
It buys the deeply discounted debt obligations of hapless underwater homeowners and countries on the open market and then demands full value payment from governments or philanthropists who step in to lend a helping hand to the afflicted.
It puts in place global rules requiring that if a government introduces regulations that prevent a foreign corporation from harming or killing people with its toxic products or discharges, the country’s government must compensate the corporation for the profits it estimates it will lose.

By capitalism’s perverse moral logic, if a person sells toxic assets by knowingly misrepresenting them as sound, the fault lies not with the misrepresentation of the seller, but rather with the lack of due diligence on the part of the overly trusting borrower. When the assets prove worthless and threaten both the solvency of both the seller and the borrower, the logic says the party responsible for the misrepresentation has a moral obligation to demand redress from the government, “Buy my toxic assets at face value and make me whole so that I return to my trade in toxic assets, or I will be forced to stop lending and crash the economy.”

Step back to take in the big picture, and it turns out Wall Street market fundamentalists have proclaimed the seven deadly sins of pride, greed, envy, anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth to be virtues. In turn they have proclaimed the seven life-serving virtues of humility, sharing, love, compassion, self-control, moderation, and passion to be sins against the market.

There is a widespread sense that with Wall Street’s apparent recovery, the window of opportunity for serious structural change has passed. Such a judgment, however, is premature. Far from closing, the window of opportunity for serious change continues to widen as public awareness of Wall Street corruption grows and true and appropriate moral outrage builds.

Most psychologically healthy adults recognize in their heart of hearts the moral perversion of the old economy, but may fear to speak up because so many experts—including even some religious leaders—continuously assure us in so many words that greed is good, even that God wants us to be financially rich and financial wealth is a mark of God’s favor.

If all who share a mature moral consciousness find the courage to speak the simple truth that greed is driving us to collective self-destruction and cooperation is essential to our common salvation, we can put the perversion behind us and secure the future of our children.

While I don't share his assertion that the "prophets of the older faith traditions" had the right idea in general, I understand what he is saying. The concepts of common good and moderation have been turned into socialist mandates. Gluttony and selfishness are considered virtues. And our modern organized religions are at the front of the line of preaching a Rapture mentality that encourages consumption and fomenting of war. They will get what they wish ... an end to the world. But, they will be disappointed when there is nothing on the other side. Everyone has to understand that this planet, right here and right now, is both our Heaven and our Hell. It is what we make of it.

"We Americans are not usually thought to be a submissive people, but of course we are. Why else would we allow our country to be destroyed? Why else would we be rewarding its destroyers? Why else would we all — by proxies we have given to greedy corporations and corrupt politicians — be participating in its destruction? Most of us are still too sane to piss in our own cistern, but we allow others to do so and we reward them for it. We reward them so well, in fact, that those who piss in our cistern are wealthier than the rest of us. How do we submit? By not being radical enough. Or by not being thorough enough, which is the same thing." -- Wendell Berry

We all got it coming ...

2011-10-30T01:02:00.000-07:00

The Schofield Kid -- [after killing a man for the first time] "It don’t seem real… how he ain’t gonna never breathe again, ever… how he’s dead. And the other one too. All on account of pulling a trigger."

Will Munny -- "It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have."

The Schofield Kid -- "Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming."

Will Munny -- "We all got it coming, kid."

Don't "beware the Ides of March"

2011-10-17T19:36:00.000-07:00

The Ides of march (from dictionary.com): March 15 in the ancient Roman calendar; the day in 44 b.c. on which Julius Caesar was assassinated.

.

Obviously, the naming of the new George Clooney directed movie, The Ides of March, is not coincidental with the subject matter. The death of Julius Caesar was borne of a conspiracy and by its very nature was political. Ostensibly, he was killed because the senators feared the march toward tyranny and the end of the Senate. Ironically, it was his death that did just that. They compromised principles to do what they believed was in the best interest of the republic.

While there is no assassination in The Ides of March, there is plenty of political intrigue and the compromising of principles in the name of idealism.

Ryan Gosling's character Stephen Myers, a campaign manager for Clooney's character, governor Mike Morris goes into the campaign full of idealism and believing the man he is working for has that same idealism. Through the machinations of the film, the integrity of Morris and the political process is called into question and leads to Myers' loss of innocence. He is faced with the quandary of opting out altogether or scheming for what he perceives as the greater good. Does he make the right choice and how can it really be for the "greater good" if one compromises one's principles? Don't expect the movie to answer that question.

There's no "happy ending". Along with the fucked up political process it represents, the movie ends ambiguously.

When we start down the road of compromising and selling our soul, when do we lose ourselves?

The casting is good. Gosling is believable as a slick and confident pitch man for a candidate. If anything, he comes across as too slick and you have a hard time buying that he would have a crisis of conscience. Clooney is Clooney. Because of his ideas and charisma, you wish that he would actually run for office.

But the actors that steal the show are the vets, Paul Giamati as the opponent's lead adviser and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Morris' adviser. Would we really expect any less from a couple of Oscar winners? They have the unique talent to be perfectly cast in whatever they play because they are just that good. Jeffrey Wright is also outstanding.

Clooney is very clever in making the candidates in question Democrats. It removes a lot of the tendency by the Right to write off the movie as another example of Hollywood liberal propaganda. Clooney rightly sees the larger point that the problem is the process and not necessarily the political ideas involved. There is no moral high ground when it comes to behavior of the two major parties' campaigns.

This is by no means a "great" political thriller. It would not be mistaken for All the President's Men or The Candidate or even The Contender. But it is good and topical. Grade: B

I’m not going to quit until I absolutely have to

2011-10-10T22:08:00.000-07:00

Showing his usual wit, but also a dignity and grace that I'm sure I wouldn't have if I were in his position, Christopher Hitchens accepted an award from Richard Dawkins at the Atheist Alliance of American Convention in Texas recently. This speech is his direct acceptance of that award (but also check out the other two videos here)

It saddens me to know that we will not have too many more of his speeches to enjoy. But it also heartens me to know that even at the end, he sticks to his convictions and does not give in to fear over logic. Because, and he knows this well, his contributions will outlast him and will give him an immortality that the religious will never have.

Book Review: The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking

2011-09-14T19:15:00.000-07:00

I have to admit, I was more than a bit miffed at one of my favorite scientists, Stephen Hawking, after reading a quote on God attributed to him recently,

"I am not claiming there is no God. The scientific account is complete, but it does not predict human behaviour, because there are too many equations to solve. One therefore uses a different model, which can include free will and God."

Now, I don't want to give the wrong impression. Complete agreement with those I admire is not a requirement. There are several political points that I fundamentally disagree with Christopher Hitchens on, but those beliefs of his are consistent with his own logic. I'm OK with that. He's otherwise brilliant and one of my favorite writers and thinkers. Hawking's the same for me. The above quote, however, seemed to go contrary to everything I knew of Hawking. And after reading The Grand Design, I have to feel that the quote was misleading or taken out of context. I realized quite early that my reservations about Hawking's quote were probably unfounded when I saw this in the first chapter,

" ... this book is rooted in the concept of scientific determinism which implies … that there are no miracles, or exceptions to the laws of nature"

Continuing on, The Grand Design serves as a good recap of the history of physics and scientific thought ranging from Kepler and Descartes to Newton and Laplace:

"It is Laplace who is usually credited with first clearly postulating scientific determinism: Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past. This would exclude the possibility of miracles or an active role for God. The scientific determinism that Laplace formulated is the modern scientist’s answer to question two. It is, in fact, the basis of all modern, and a principle that is important throughout this book. A scientific law is not a scientific law if it holds only when some supernatural being decides not to intervene. Recognizing this, Napoleon is said to have asked Laplace how God fit into this picture. Laplace replied: ―Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.""

And we don't need it either. The Grand Design (co-written by Leonard Mlodinow) is quite a beautiful book with color artwork and photography. Far from being some dry, technical tome stretching for a thousand pages, the book is a quick moving refresher on the drive to unify the various theories of physics (gravity, electromagnetic, etc.) into one Grand Unified Theory. Besides being probably impossible, it is also untestable within our current level of understanding. But it doesn't stop people from trying. Clocking in at 180 pages, you can polish off The Grand Design in a night. There is no math and just a few Feynman Diagrams to wrap your noodle around.

Don't expect The Grand Design to provide in-depth explanations of the string theory and M-theory with mathematical proofs. Hawking (and Mlodinow) assume the reader either already has a deeper understanding or doesn't need one. I come somewhere in between. I have read much deeper explanations in some of Hawking's other books and by other scientists. But, I would be lying if I said that I completely understood them. I don't think (and Hawking as well) that it's required to get the gist of the concepts. The supposition, however, did give me a little pause because Hawking seems to want to wrap up M-theory as the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. You're just flying along in this short book, getting whisked from the microscopic to the unbelievably humongous and all of a sudden you end up at M-theory ... answer to everything ... The End. I couldn't help getting the feeling that a few steps were skipped and that Hawking might be a little presumptuous to say that it is "the" answer.

There are other books of this nature that give an overview of modern theory. I read Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe not too long ago, just to name one. New theoretical ground is not broken in The Grand Design, and that is probably just as well, as most normal people like us wouldn't understand it. I certainly wouldn't. Science geeks are not the only ones that will get something from the book as philosophical concepts such as the anthropic principle are discussed as well. When you are getting into the field of extra dimensions, it's really approaching philosophy. Perhaps not coincidentally, scientists used to be called natural philosophers. Anyway, if you are curious about how the universe works ... or if you are just curious, The Grand Design is not a bad starting point.

Movie Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

2011-09-05T09:35:00.000-07:00

My lack of movie and book reviews is not from a lack of viewing, or reading, but rather from laziness. It's time to play catch-up. I'll start with the most recent and will try to work my way backwards, one a day.

I just saw Rise of the Planet of the Apes late last night. It's nothing special but holds that elevated position of being science fiction, and as such, has to try harder to disappoint me. Because, as I've said ad nauseum, even the worst science fiction still has something to say. Where they fail in execution, they make up for in effort.

In effectively establishing how the "Planet of the Apes" came to be, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is useful. The movie's premise: development of a potential Alzheimer's cure has led to primate testing. Unintended, and unexpected, the cure (in the form of a controlled virus) actually enhances cognitive ability of the test subjects.

The virus establishes both how the primates get their intelligence and how the humans are decimated and subjugated (it appears to kill humans). The launch of a Mars mission and its subsequent loss establishes how human astronauts may, in the future, return to a vastly changed world. In their care for setting these things up, it is obvious that the filmmakers intend on making more movies (as if there was any question). It's all about the benjamins, baby.

The special effects of the primates are very good, from a technical standpoint, but are most obviously aided by the unique motion capture talents of Andy Serkis. Serkis, whose genius has been witnessed in Lord of the Rings (as Gollum) and King Kong, gives a humanity to Caesar without anthropomorphizing him. Serkis is truly a unique actor whose actual role is both hard to describe and quantify, but whose skill is obvious on screen. He is a normal actor as well, with roles in 13 Going on 30 and other films, but it was through Lord of the Rings and a position that was given larger significance because of his talent in motion capture. He'd actually do every scene both in studio for motion capture and on location for the benefit of the actors acting opposite Gollum.

The acting is nothing special, despite having some great actors in it, including Franco (as scientist Will Rodman), John Lithgow, and Brian Cox. Lithgow is really the only one that gets to show his chops. He plays Rodman's father, who is suffering from Alzheimer's, and who is Rodman's motivation for developing a cure. Freida Pinto, despite being gorgeous, does nothing to show her acting ability. I thought she was very good in Slumdog Millionaire, but she either does not get the opportunity to show her ability here, or fails to take advantage of the chances she does get. The script doesn't really give her a purpose.

Where I believe that Rise of the Planet of the Apes does itself credit is in its treatment of the role of science and ethics. It's like that quote by the Jeff Goldblum character in Jurassic Park:

"Don't you see the danger ... inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun ... I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done, and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you, you've patented it, and packaged it, you've slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it ... your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

While it is admirable to be thinking of a cure for Alzheimer's, we have to be aware of the unintended consequences.

If I have a criticism of the movie, it is in its moral stance of the James Franco character. He seems happy, or at least content, that his pet/friend Caesar gains his freedom, which is fine. But he seems unconcerned that what has ultimately led to the intelligence leap of the primates is also the virus that will virtually wipe out the human race. No time is spent to examine whether he has any concerns of this. He is complicit in wiping out humanity. But, I guess, at the end of the movie, he doesn't yet realize the pandemic that has started. Hopefully, it's something that will be addressed in a future movie.

Anyway, not a bad way to spend a couple of hours. Grade: B-

"Our belief is not a belief"

2011-08-29T12:02:00.000-07:00

I've just started reading the Christopher Hitchens' book, God is Not Great. Hitch is as erudite and acerbic as ever, wonderfully so, but also humorous. I've had the book forever, but there are only so many hours in the day and entirely too many good books to read (a not altogether bad problem to have). I'll do a bigger review later but I couldn't resist putting up this quote from just the first couple of pages:

"And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically ... We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books. Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and—since there is no other metaphor—also the soul." -- Christopher Hitchens in God is Not Great

I couldn't not have put it better myself. Actually, I don't think any living writer could have put it better.

2011-08-19T14:51:00.000-07:00

Look up ... not down

2011-08-17T12:45:00.000-07:00

A nice response to those that would cut funding to NASA:

Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of my favorite science popularizers and a worthy warrior against the rampant anti-intellectualism of today.

"I don't want students who could make the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space travel to have been taught that anything they don't understand, and that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their intellectual capacity. The day that happens, Americans will just sit in awe of what we don't understand, while we watch the rest of the world boldly go where no mortal has gone before." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Atheism is NOT fundamentalism

2011-08-12T15:28:00.000-07:00

atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" ...

"Without a god" ... that's it. That's all that atheism means. But almost all theists, and a remarkable number of skeptics/agnostics get this wrong. They believe that atheism implies certainty that there is no god. Many people that I know that are actually atheists believe that atheism requires the same amount of belief and intractability as fundamentalist Christianity. So they call themselves "agnostic". Hell, I used to call myself an agnostic because I had the same exact misconception. I know these are just words, but words have some importance. People base their opinions on these words. And to me, agnostic, is a much more dangerous word, especially for those that call themselves inquisitive and curious:

agnostic
... a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable ...

I don't hold anything as being "unknowable". Why would we even go on if we didn't believe that we could discover the nature of things eventually? Not knowing something is not scary to me but making the decision that something couldn't ever be known is.

The term skeptic doesn't bother me as much in that it is a more philosophical term. I get the line of thinking that posits that nothing, really, is absolutely "known". But that is in a much more abstract sense of the word.

Anyway, the whole reason why I was reminded of this whole subject was by a tweet by the great blogger, vjack, today that linked to one of his older posts:

Atheism Does Not Require Certainty

Check that post out, and his blog in general. Consistently good stuff.

And to my friends who are scared by me calling myself an atheist ... don't be. I don't believe there is a God because I'm not going to apply one way of thinking to one part of my life and another to the balance. I take nothing on faith in my daily life and why should I when it comes to spirituality? I don't "know" there is no God, but nothing that I have ever experienced or seen would lead me to believe otherwise. Christians "know" there is a God. Now, you tell me which side is fundamentalist?

Atheism is not a religion and as such does not require faith. All that it requires is a good healthy dose of skepticism and curiosity.

Facebook ... haven for morons

2011-08-09T21:50:00.000-07:00

From one of my Facebook "friend's" pages:

When you carry a Bible, the devil gets a headache.
When you open it, he collapses.
When he see's you reading it, he faints.
When he see's you living it, he flees.
And just when you are about to re-post this, he will try to discourage you.
I just defeated him. Copy & paste this if you are in God's Arm
Boo-yah

I'm at a loss for words. You can't make stuff like this up. Facebook and Christianity ... a match made in idiot heaven.

Faith no more

2011-08-02T19:50:00.000-07:00

Cartoon by Christopher Madden

For good, and relatively brief summations of some popular scientists' and authors' takes on God, I highly recommend you read Faith no more by Andrew Zak Williams, in the current New Statesman. They are very entertaining, save for a rather puzzling (and disappointing) answer by Hawking. I've highlighted just a few of them. There are many more at the above link.

Philip Pullman -- Author
The main reason I don't believe in God is the missing evidence. There could logically be no evidence that he doesn't exist, so I can only go by the fact that, so far, I've discovered no evidence that he does: I have had no personal experience of being spoken to by God and I see nothing in the world around me, wherever I look in history or science or art or anywhere else, to persuade me that it was the work of God rather than of nature. ...

Kenan Malik -- Neurobiologist, writer and broadcaster
I am an atheist because I see no need for God. Without God, it is said, we cannot explain the creation of the cosmos, anchor our moral values or infuse our lives with meaning and purpose. I disagree.

Invoking God at best highlights what we cannot yet explain about the physical universe, and at worst exploits that ignorance to mystify. Moral values do not come prepackaged from God, but have to be worked out by human beings through a combination of empathy, reasoning and dialogue. This is true of believers, too: they, after all, have to decide for themselves which values in their holy books they accept and which ones they reject. And it is not God that gives meaning to our lives, but our relationships with fellow human beings and the goals and obligations that derive from them. God is at best redundant, at worst an obstruction. Why do I need him?

Susan Blackmore -- Psychologist and author
What reason for belief could I possibly have? To explain suffering? He doesn't. Unless, that is, you buy in to his giving us free will, which conflicts with all we know about human decision-making.

To give me hope of an afterlife? My 30 years of parapsychological research threw that hope out. To explain the mystical, spiritual and out-of-body experiences I have had? No: our rapidly improving knowledge of the brain is providing much better explanations than religious reasoning. To explain the existence and complexity of the wonderful world I see around me? No - and this is really the main one.

God is supposed (at least in some versions of the story) to have created us all. Yet the Creator (any creator) is simply redundant. Every living thing on this planet evolved by processes that require no designer, no plans, no guidance and no foresight. We need no God to do this work. Where would he fit in? What would he do? And why? If he did have any role in our creation, he would have to be immensely devious, finickity, deceitful and mind-bogglingly cruel, which would be a very odd kind of God to believe in. So I don't.

Richard Dawkins -- Evolutionary biologist
I don't believe in leprechauns, pixies, werewolves, jujus, Thor, Poseidon, Yahweh, Allah or the Trinity. For the same reason in every case: there is not the tiniest shred of evidence for any of them, and the burden of proof rests with those who wish to believe.

Even given no evidence for specific gods, could we make a case for some unspecified "intelligent designer" or "prime mover" or begetter of "something rather than nothing"? By far the most appealing version of this argument is the biological one - living things do present a powerful illusion of design. But that is the very version that Darwin destroyed. Any theist who appeals to "design" of living creatures simply betrays his ignorance of biology. Go away and read a book. And any theist who appeals to biblical evidence betrays his ignorance of modern scholarship. Go away and read another book.

As for the cosmological argument, whose God goes under names such as Prime Mover or First Cause, the physicists are closing in, with spellbinding results. Even if there remain unanswered questions - where do the fundamental laws and constants of physics come from? - obviously it cannot help to postulate a designer whose existence poses bigger questions than he purports to solve. If science fails, our best hope is to build a better science. The answer will lie neither in theology nor - its exact equivalent - reading tea leaves.

In any case, it is a fatuously illogical jump from deistic Unmoved Mover to Christian Trinity, with the Son being tortured and murdered because the Father, for all his omniscience and omnipotence, couldn't think of a better way to forgive "sin".

... Why is religion immune from the critical standards that we apply not just in courts of law, but in every other sphere of life?

Paula Kirby -- Writer
I stopped being a believer when it became clear to me that the various versions of Christianity were mutually contradictory and that none had empirical evidence to support it. From the recognition that "knowing in my heart" was an unreliable guide to reality, I began to explore other types of explanation for life, the universe and everything, and discovered in science - biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, geology, psychology - answers that genuinely explain, as opposed to those of religion, whose aim is to shroud their lack of substance in a cloak of mystery and metaphor.

All-importantly, these scientific answers, even when tentative, are supported by evidence. That they are also far more thrilling, far more awe-inspiring, than anything religion can offer, and that I find life fuller, richer and more satisfying when it's looked firmly in the eye and wholeheartedly embraced for the transient and finite wonder that it is, is a happy bonus.

Sam Harris -- Neuroscientist
The most common impediment to clear thinking that a non-believer must confront is the idea that the burden of proof can be fairly placed on his shoulders: "How do you know there is no God? Can you prove it? You atheists are just as dogmatic as the fundamentalists you criticise." This is nonsense: even the devout tacitly reject thousands of gods, along with the cherished doctrines of every religion but their own. Every Christian can confidently judge the God of Zoroaster to be a creature of fiction, without first scouring the universe for evidence of his absence. Absence of evidence is all one ever needs to banish false knowledge. And bad evidence, proffered in a swoon of wishful thinking, is just as damning.

But honest reasoning can lead us further into the fields of unbelief, for we can prove that books such as the Bible and the Quran bear no trace of divine authorship. We know far too much about the history of these texts to accept what they say about their own origins. And just imagine how good a book would be if it had been written by an omniscient Being.

The moment one views the contents of scripture in this light, one can reject the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity and Islam definitively. The true authors of God's eternal Word knew nothing about the origins of life, the relationship between mind and brain, the causes of illness, or how best to create a viable, global civilisation in the 21st century. That alone should resolve every conflict between religion and science in the latter's favour, until the end of the world.

In fact, the notion that any ancient book could be an infallible guide to living in the present gets my vote for being the most dangerously stupid idea on earth.

What remains for us to discover, now and always, are those truths about our world that will allow us to survive and fully flourish. For this, we need only well-intentioned and honest inquiry - love and reason. Faith, if it is ever right about anything, is right by accident.

Daniel Dennett -- Philosopher
The concept of God has gradually retreated from the concept of an anthropomorphic creator figure, judge and overseer to a mystery-shrouded Wonderful Something-or-Other utterly beyond human ken. It is impossible for me to believe in any of the anthropomorphic gods, because they are simply ridiculous, and so obviously the fantasy-projections of scientifically ignorant minds trying to understand the world. It is impossible for me to believe in the laundered versions, because they are systematically incomprehensible. It would be like trying to believe in the existence of wodgifoop - what's that? Don't ask; it's beyond saying.

But why try anyway? There is no obligation to try to believe in God; that's a particularly pernicious myth left over from the days when organised religions created the belief in belief. One can be good without God, obviously.

Many people feel very strongly that one should try to believe in God, so as not to upset Granny, or so as to encourage others to do likewise, or because it makes you nicer or nobler. So they go through the motions. Usually it doesn't work.

I am in awe of the universe itself, and very grateful to be a part of it. That is enough.

A C Grayling -- Philosopher
I do not believe that there are any such things as gods and goddesses, for exactly the same reasons as I do not believe there are fairies, goblins or sprites, and these reasons should be obvious to anyone over the age of ten.

Stephen Hawking -- Physicist
I am not claiming there is no God. The scientific account is complete, but it does not predict human behaviour, because there are too many equations to solve. One therefore uses a different model, which can include free will and God.

Michael Shermer -- Publisher of Skeptic magazine
I do not believe in God for four reasons. First, there is not enough evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe and ourselves and hands down moral laws and offers us eternal life. Second, any such being that was supernatural would by definition be outside the purview of our knowledge of the natural world and would necessarily have to be part of the natural world if we did discover such an entity. This brings me to the third reason, Shermer's Last Law, which is that any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God. (Because of Moore's law [of increasing computer power] and Kurzweil's law of accelerating returns, we ourselves will be able to engineer life, solar systems and even universes, given enough time.) Fourth, there is overwhelming evidence from history, anthropology, sociology and psychology that human beings created God, not vice versa. In the past 10,000 years there have been roughly 10,000 religions and 1,000 different gods. What are the chances that one group of people discovered the One True God while everyone else believed in 9,999 false gods? A likelier explanation is that all gods and religion are socially and psychologically constructed. We created gods.

Richard Wiseman -- Psychologist
I do not believe in God because it seems both illogical and unnecessary. According to the believers, their God is an all-powerful and almighty force. However, despite this, their God allows for huge amounts of suffering and disease. Also, if I were to believe in God, logically speaking I would have to believe in a wide range of other entities for which there is no evidence, including pixies, goblins and gnomes, etc. It's a long list and I don't have room in my head for all of them. So, I am happy to believe that there is no God. We are just insignificant lumps of carbon flying through a tiny section of the universe. Our destiny is totally in our own hands, and it is up to each of us to make the best of our life. Let's stop worrying about mythical entities and start living.

... and, PZ Myers, not surprisingly, has the harshest (and funniest) criticisms of religion:

P Z Myers -- Biologist
I am accustomed to the idea that truth claims ought to be justified with some reasonable evidence: if one is going to claim, for instance, that a Jewish carpenter was the son of a God, or that there is a place called heaven where some ineffable, magical part of you goes when you die, then there ought to be some credible reason to believe that. And that reason ought to be more substantial than that it says so in a big book.

Religious claims all seem to short-circuit the rational process of evidence-gathering and testing and the sad thing is that many people don't see a problem with that, and even consider it a virtue. It is why I don't just reject religion, but actively oppose it in all its forms - because it is fundamentally a poison for the mind that undermines our critical faculties.

Religious beliefs are lazy jokes with bad punchlines. Why do you have to chop off the skin at the end of your penis? Because God says so. Why should you abstain from pork, or shrimp, or mixing meat and dairy, or your science classes? Because they might taint your relationship with God. Why do you have to revere a bit of dry biscuit? Because it magically turns into a God when a priest mutters over it. Why do I have to be good? Because if you aren't, a God will set you on fire for all eternity.

These are ridiculous propositions. The whole business of religion is clownshoes freakin' moonshine, hallowed by nothing but unthinking tradition, fear and superstitious behaviour, and an establishment of con artists who have dedicated their lives to propping up a sense of self-importance by claiming to talk to an invisible big kahuna.

It's not just fact-free, it's all nonsense.

Amen.

I'm a masochist

2011-07-30T09:19:00.000-07:00

Because I'm apparently not already spreading myself too thin, I've started a Tumblr blog here. I just wanted to try something that is a lot easier to post to from a mobile platform ... in my case, a Blackberry. I'll mostly be posting quotes, pics and shorter blog posts there. Hopefully, it will encourage me to post stuff more frequently and as I think of them. For now, my Tumblr posts will show up as an RSS feed on this site (at the top on the right) and also to my Twitter feed. I'm trying to research if there is a way for my Tumblr posts to automatically post to Blogger where normal posts are.

I'm not stopping my Blogger blog. Rather, I'm just trying to figure out ways to enhance how and when I post to it. To be continued ...

Things I like: Science Popularizers

2011-07-16T00:02:00.000-07:00

I like science without having to be convinced to like it. But I'm not necessarily the common audience. That's why I'm a big fan of those scientists and authors that are able to 1) bring science down to the level of the non-scientist without being condescending and 2) make it interesting in the process.

I grew up in the age of one of the best science popularizers ever, Carl Sagan. His knowledge of physics and astronomy was perhaps only exceeded by his enthusiasm for the same. He made it semi-cool for a nerdy kid to run around saying "billions and billions". OK, even he couldn't have made me cool. But at least I was interested in science.

As I got older, others including Stephen Hawking became popular. When my wife, who could not care less about science, is aware of a scientist like Hawking, then you know someone has entered pop culture.

Despite the obvious anti-intellectualism that seems rampant in society, I still think we are in the heyday of science popularizers and that gives me hope. And maybe we are not as anti-science as it appears. There is a very vocal segment of society (much of Congress, all of FOX News) that has a high moral regard for the Dark Ages, but maybe they are just a loudmouth minority and don't represent most of society. That is what I hope.

If society is going to be brought back from the brink, minds such as these will play a big part:

Brian Cox, broadcaster, musician and physicist
Paul Davies, physicist, author and broadcaster
Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and author
Daniel Dennett, philosopher and cognitive scientist
Jared Diamond, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, biogeographer and author
Brian Greene, physicist
Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist and author
Christopher Hitchens, author, journalist and essayist
Jamie Hyneman, special effects artist and television personality (MythBusters)
Lawrence Krauss, physicist and author
Robert Krulwich, broadcaster
Bill Nye, broadcaster and mechanical engineer, known as the "Science Guy"
Steven Pinker, experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist and author
Adam Savage, special effects artist and television personality (MythBusters)
Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and author
... and many others

I've had the fortune to have seen a couple of them in person, Richard Dawkins, Paul Davies, and Lawrence Krauss (and spoke to Krauss).

What makes many of them so relevant is not their knowledge, but their willingness and ability to use that knowledge to educate. Please don't get me wrong. I don't anyone to have to dumb themselves down. But, let's be honest ... if people like Hawking and Greene were to talk to us as they speak to each other, they might as well be speaking ancient Greek. And this is coming from someone who took 5 college level calculus courses, calculus-based physics, and astrodynamics.

deGrasse Tyson, for one, is funny and very active on the talk-show circuit, having appeared on the Daily Show and Colbert repeatedly, plus he has podcasts and a PBS show called Nova Science Now that I regularly watch with my son. Just yesterday he was on Jimmy Fallon:

Pointy-headed academicians are not going to be the ones that convince Joe Schmoe of the dangers of climate change, the importance of pure research, and why we should continue the space program. It will be through people like deGrasse Tyson that sway the common man with humor and a sense of awe. One can hope that a sense of wonder will replace fear and mysticism. We'll see.

"Catapult the Propaganda"

2011-07-15T20:08:00.000-07:00

I have to give credit where credit is due. It takes a special kind of stupid to be able to consume FOX News on a daily basis. We ate dinner at BJ's Brewpub tonight and among their bank of TV's, FOX News was on ... with no sound. Even without sound, within 5 minutes I was ready to put a gun in my mouth. In that small time frame, I was able to discover that Obama is the worst imperialist President ever, that he was going to take my home through imminent domain and was going to tax me into submission. That's important information that I was lucky enough to have beat into my brain without so much as a convincing argument. I was able to tick off at least a half dozen of the classic propaganda techniques without even trying.

A reasoning FOX News viewer might be concerned by the turmoil of News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch, but as evidenced by my short indoctrination, there couldn't possibly be any reasoning FOX News viewers.

Quantum Typography

2011-07-07T10:46:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of Garry Tan at garry's visualposterous

Happy 4th of July

2011-07-04T00:01:00.000-07:00

"I despise my own nation most. Because I know it best. Because I still love it, suffering from Hope. For me, that's patrotism." -- Edward Abbey

Things I like: Bluegrass music

2011-06-08T22:44:00.000-07:00

My musical upbringing was all over the place. An Iowa-born father and west coast mother brought the music of those two arenas together in our household. Charlie Rich, Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard intermixed with The Fifth Dimension, The Mamas and The Papas and Elvis. Growing up in small town Iowa, I was sheltered from more rebellious art forms like punk, so instead was exposed to a heavy dose of Kasey Casem Top 40 on my little transistor radio. Teen years ... New Wave, Duran Duran, The Police. In college, I finally got outside of the confines of programmed radio. Ministry, Skinny Puppy, Prong, Front Line Assembly and the real coming out party for college radio: REM, U2, The Smiths, Joy Division, The Pogues. Just as I was graduating ... Nirvana, Pearl Jam.

As I've gotten older, I still listen to most of those things but have developed a real appreciation for the most original of those American musical art forms: Jazz, Folk, and Bluegrass. Once you start listening to the older music, you understand that most of the later music that you like was greatly influenced by what came before. The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones were just giving their interpretations of American blues music. Country music largely derived from bluegrass, gospel, folk and blues. Now, I can't really stand what is now called country music, save for those few acts that seem to understand where it all came from.

I'm by no means a historian, but I know what I like listening to and my recent fascination with bluegrass music spawned from a singular angelic voice, that of Alison Krauss. Those elements of bluegrass that I most like and that comprise most bluegrass is the vocal harmonies, and the great instrumentation of the banjo and the fiddle. And you get that in spades with Alison Krauss and Union Station.

I understand the real progenitors of bluegrass were players like Bill Monroe, Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs and I have listened to them, but they're probably a little too old school for even me. I prefer Ricky Skaggs and Vince Gill, the music of O Brother, Where Art Thou? and the college age groups like The Punch Brothers:

The Punch Brothers are unique in that they are ostensibly playing bluegrass but their song structure are more classical. Mandolinist Chris Thile's earlier band, Nickel Creek, is also very good.

Bluegrass is not for everyone, but I dig it. It may seem like hillbilly music, and to a large extent it is, but to write it off as such would be selling it short. There's a lot of history of our country in those sounds and many other places that originally influenced it, including Africa, the UK and Ireland.

Next up, tomorrow: Philosophy

Things I like: Science Fiction

2011-06-07T23:20:00.000-07:00

For regular readers here, this is no surprise. And I mean that I like science fiction in all its flavors: books, movies, TV, graphic novels. And it doesn't even have to be great science fiction. I've said this before, but I believe that even bad science fiction has merit. This is because even the worst science fiction is trying to make a point or send a message. It may fail miserably, but it's still trying.

Science fiction is allowed to address important social and political issues that traditional genres would not be able to without being considered preachy. Most recently we saw this with Battlestar Galactica, addressing torture, fundamentalism and terrorism, among other things.

My early beginnings in sci-fi were the novels of Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov and Frank Herbert. As I got a bit older, Larry Niven became probably my favorite hard sci-fi author. It might be cliche, but for a brainy and shy teenager, the escapism of science fiction was one of the few things that brought me solace and joy for those tough years.

In my adult years, I gravitated to the cyberpunk of William Gibson and Neal Stephenson. But, I'm still discovering authors that are fantastic, like Greg Bear and Iain M. Banks, and fantasy authors like Philip Pullman and Neil Gaiman.

Obviously, as with all males of my age, one of the most formative experiences of my youth was seeing the original Star Wars movie. In those days, there was no Internet, no DVD's, and VCR's really weren't prevalent yet. Going to a movie theater and seeing something like Star Wars was an indescribable experience. It's so indelible that I remember that it was at a drive-in in Salem, Oregon and we watched it in the back of my folks Jeep.

It was through Star Wars, Blade Runner, the Alien movies and the books of my youth that my interest was cultivated. The 70's and 80's were, however, NOT the heyday of science fiction on television. You had the original Battlestar Galactica (which may prove wrong my theory of all science fiction having merit) and Space 1999, both unintentionally campy and embarrassing. I had no exposure to Doctor Who until I was in college. It's really just been the last 15 years or so that science fiction has come into it's own through things like the X-Files, the Stargate shows, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, the new Doctor Who, and many other shows. Something that was often an afterthought in programming now has a channel dedicated to it (SyFy) and just about every traditional network has at least one program that could be considered science fiction.

I just don't find issues of science, philosophy, consciousness, religion, the environment, war, etc. being addressed in such an entertaining manner as I do in science fiction. I don't read a lot of fiction, but when I do, about 75% of it is science fiction.

Top 5 favorite science fiction/fantasy books, no particular order: Dune, Lord of the Rings, Snow Crash, Neuromancer, Contact

Top 5 favorite science fiction movies, no particular order: 2001, Star Wars, Blade Runner, The Matrix, Children of Men

Next up, tomorrow: Bluegrass music

Things I like: Chess

2011-06-06T22:10:00.000-07:00

Over the years, I've immersed myself in both the mythology and history of chess, which is endlessly fascinating, but also the actual playing of it. I probably own about 100 books on arcane chess theory and have went through entirely too many of them.

The main reason that I started reading so much about chess theory was that as a teenager I was tired of my dad handing me my ass on a plate every time we played. He'd never studied chess but is much more of a natural chess player than myself. Learning some theory helped me to level the playing field a bit.

An upcoming documentary on HBO on Bobby Fischer was what got me thinking about chess again. Fischer, a nut job and possessing of unforgivable opinions on many things in the real world (Jews among them), was, nonetheless, a genius and probably the best chess player of all time. Both his play and his unusual life made for great drama and the documentary should be interesting. Another movie that delves into Fischer, but more tangentially, is Searching for Bobby Fischer. It's the true story of chess prodigy Josh Waitzkin. It's a great movie with a nice cast: Joe Montegna, Joan Allen, Laurence Fishburne, William H. Macy and Ben Kingsley.

For all my interest in chess, I don't play a lot. The wife knows how to play but usually does not want to. My ingrained competitive nature does not make for an enjoyable leisurely game for her. My son seems to be developing a similar interest in chess and tries hard.

I'm not sure what fascinates me so much about chess. It's not a game or sport in the traditional sense. Chess prodigies have more in common with math and music prodigies than those that excel in other games.

The rules are relatively simple but the possibilities are endless. You could play all your life and never master it. Maybe that's what attracts me ... chess as a metaphor for life.

"That's what Chess is all about. One day you give your
opponent a lesson, the next day he gives you one." -- Bobby Fischer

Next up, tomorrow, Science Fiction

Things I like: Modern Design

2011-06-05T14:20:00.000-07:00

I'm going to start a new series of posts about the things I like. Nothing necessarily deep, but rather an idea, a concept, a movie, an artist, whatever, that I like. One a day for as long as I can stand it. I'm not going to overthink them. I'll just pick something and riff on it for awhile. Too often I use my blog to complain about something ... and that's definitely necessary and not something I'm going to stop ... but it's important to talk about those things we have a positive view of also.

Of course this seems incredibly narcissistic. Why, you would rightly ask, would anyone really give a shit what I like? And I would answer ... wait, I don't really have a good answer to that. Ultimately, it's an exercise to encourage me to write more often. Through exploring what it is in daily life that I truly enjoy, I might better use my time.

First up is Modern Design

And by Modern Design, I mean that architecture, art, furniture, etc. that rejects tradition. I'm certainly not an expert in any of those but I know that I really like the modern architecture as demonstrated in the works of photographer Julius Schulman and the design of architects like Wright, Philip Johnson and Frank Gehry. I like the furniture designs of Eames. Of course, I can't afford either. My tract home with Ikea furniture is a far cry. But the names aren't the point. The aesthetic is the point.

Modern Design appeals to be because of the practicality and functionality, especially as it pertains to sustainability. It's the classic "form follows function". In my own life, I try to get to what is essential and get rid of the clutter. We spend every day wasting time and money with those things that are not really essential to us.

My interest probably started with my interest in Frank Lloyd Wright. Growing up, my family lived in Oregon for a time and some friends of the family were architects. And they designed very much in the Wright style. I was hooked and well into high school, I thought I'd go to college for architecture, but life and finances derailed me into the more generic engineering. But, my interest never waned. Some day, when money is no object, I'll have that modernist house and that Eames chair:

For the 2nd year in a row, I'll be going out to LA for the Dwell on Design show. We go out to LA a couple times of year anyway because of having relatives in Manhattan Beach but the show is a compelling reason for me to go out at that particular time. We're hopefully going to get to the Getty Museum as well.

I've subscribed to Dwell Magazine for several years and it is a great source for ideas on modernist design.

Next up, tomorrow: Chess

Bring 'em Home

2011-05-30T12:26:00.000-07:00

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

The best way we can honor our soldiers on Memorial Day is to bring them all home.

Dear Human

2011-05-28T10:39:00.000-07:00

This is good (click the pic to see the whole comic strip):

Tweeted by @michaelshermer. Webcomic by Zach Weiner at SMBC Comics.

There's nothing like a Guinness ...

2011-05-23T20:06:00.000-07:00

You gotta like a man that drinks a Guinness:

There but for the grace of God ...

2011-05-19T22:11:00.000-07:00

Roger Ebert tweeted about this a day or so ago. It's a short film/documentary about the Salton Sea in California called The Accidental Sea:

The clip's only about 6 minutes, so take a look. Powerful stuff about the hubris with which we fuck with nature and how nature will ultimately fuck us back. Some of the scenery you will recognize if you've ever seen Into the Wild, as Chris McCandless' adventures led him to the Salton Sea for a time. I couldn't help but think of The World Without Us as well because of the manner in which the desert reclaims the land ... and quickly. One of my favorite lines from the clip:

It's easy to look at the Salton Sea and say, 'Of course it failed' ... But I look at it and think 'there but for the grace of God go the rest of us'. (paraphrasing)

And by this he means that basically anywhere we try to alter nature for our purposes, we are in danger of some push-back. We need to work in harmony as much as possible so as to mitigate these wild swings. This has been said before but it bears repeating: "Saving the planet" is really a misnomer. The planet doesn't need saved. It'll be just fine and will outlast us. We are merely a blip in its timeline. What we do need to do is make sure that we do our best to make it livable while we are here.

"... in the day after humans disappear, nature takes over and immediately begins cleaning house - our houses." -- Alan Weisman in The World Without Us

Obi-Wan Kenobi is dead ...

2011-05-14T10:00:00.000-07:00

Laura posted a link to this on Facebook:

Obi-Wan Kenobi Is Dead, Vader Says

It's hilarious! Be sure to read the comments as well. They're even better than the article.

Going Green Update

2011-05-08T22:31:00.000-07:00

Short of me getting into a completely different line of work and abandoning my company, I'm going to drive a lot of miles. Undesirable, but unavoidable at least for now. So, to make the best of it, we finally got a Prius today. 90% of my driving is city driving at about 40 - 45 mph and that is in the sweet spot of a Prius. At this speed and slower, it primarily runs as an electric car and thus gets some crazy good gas mileage. Our Hyundai that we traded in (may it rest in peace ... 186,000 miles) got pretty good gas mileage, about 30 in the city. With the Prius, I'm hoping to double that. I'll report back here after a month or so with my results. One of the nice things about the Prius is the on-screen readouts that report whether you are running from the gas engine or electric, or both and what your current MPG is. It's very easy to see how your driving habits, the road conditions, and even having the A/C on can affect the gas mileage. So count on me trying some "hypermileage" techniques.

The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

2011-05-08T02:02:00.000-07:00

Jeez ... I never blog. Gotta change that.

As I mentioned earlier, I just recently finished Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape.

Of the Four Horseman of "New Atheism", Harris is probably my favorite author. I've previously read his Letter to a Christian Nation, a very good book and I highly recommend it.

That book, as the title implies, is shorter and is a good introduction to Harris. The Moral Landscape is significantly more scholarly and incorporates a lot of research from Harris particular field of expertise, neuroscience, which he has a PhD in. In The Moral Landscape, Harris not only makes the compelling argument that morality can be defined scientifically but also takes on the criticism of atheists as being moral relativists. If anything, a morality that depends on the well-being of others, as his science-based morality does, is anything but. There are right and wrong answers to moral questions, completely independent of religion. For example, murder is not wrong because the Bible says it is. People would know it is wrong if there were no Bible. The Bible merely reflects many of the universal moral truths that we already know. When religion seeks to dictate morality outside of that is where it runs into problems. Now, obviously, his explanation is not as simple as mine, but that is the general gist of it.

One of the most important things I took from the book was that the morality of separate cultures is not necessarily equal and should not be respected as such. This is a valid criticism of many liberals and where the charge of moral relativism often comes from. As he says, "the moment we admit that we know anything about human well-being scientifically, we must admit that certain individuals or cultures can be absolutely wrong about it."

The "moral blindness in the name of 'tolerance'" allows "highly educated, secular, and otherwise well-intentioned people to pause thoughtfully ... before condemning practices like compulsory veling, genital excision, bride burning, forced marriage ..." This learned confusion is the same thing that blamed Salman Rushdie for his fatwa or the Danish cartoonists for the Mohammed controversy.

Other parts of the book delve into the neurological reasons for belief and why those who believe reason in a certain manner. Creationism and general Christian distrust of science can be explained by the fact that "people tend to seek evidence that confirms an hypothesis rather than evidence that refutes it. This strategy is known to produce frequent reasoning errors. Our bias toward belief may also explain the 'illusory-truth effect,' where mere exposure to a proposition, even when it was revealed to be false or attributed to an unreliable source, increases the likelihood that it will later be remembered as being true."

Why people initially pick up their beliefs is due to several factors that are "more emotional and social than strictly cognitive. Wishful thinking, self-serving bias, in-group loyalties, and frank self-deception can lead to monstrous departures from the norms of rationality. Most beliefs are evaluated against a background of other beliefs and often in the context of an ideology that a person shares with others. Consequently, people are rarely as open to revising their views as reason would seem to dictate."

People often have certain beliefs because they want to feel good or as Harris says, "to hew to a positive state of mind - to mitigate feelings of anxiety, embarrassment, or guilt ..." Because their happiness is dependent on those beliefs, any evidence that runs counter is ignored.

The ideas that he espouses here are not necessarily new, and I believe most of us already know them to be instinctively true, but he does a good job of establishing a scientific basis for studying and quantifying morality.

In my next post, I'm going to try and touch on some of the possible evolutionary reasons for belief and will also go further into Harris' criticism of noted science/religion reconciler Francis Collins.

"We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side by side; one which we preach but do not practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach." -- Bertrand Russell

Saved! ... or not

2011-04-22T10:17:00.000-07:00

I just finished Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape (a great book BTW) and I will review it later, probably doing several posts on different topics, but, in honor of Good Friday, I thought I'd tease with the following bon mot. Harris was speaking of Francis Collins, the head of the NIH and a scientist that Christians like to parade out when trying to say that religion and science are compatible, because Collins professes to be a Christian.

Thus, Collins’s faith is predicated on the claim that miracle stories of the sort that today surround a person like Sathya Sai Baba and do not even merit an hour on cable television somehow become especially credible when set in the prescientific religious context of the first-century Roman Empire, decades after their supposed occurrence, as evidenced by discrepant and fragmentary copies of copies of copies of ancient Greek manuscripts. It is on this basis that the current head of the NIH recommends that we believe the following propositions:

Jesus Christ, a carpenter by trade, was born of a virgin, ritually murdered as a scapegoat for the collective sins of his species, and then resurrected from death after an interval of three days.
He promptly ascended, bodily, to “heaven” -- where, for two millennia, he has eavesdropped upon (and, on occasion, even answered) the simultaneous prayers of billions of beleaguered human beings.
Not content to maintain this numinous arrangement indefinitely, this invisible carpenter will one day return to earth to judge humanity for its sexual indiscretions and skeptical doubts, at which time he will grant immortality to anyone who has had the good fortune to be convinced, on Mother’s knee, that this baffling litany of miracles is the most important series of truths ever revealed about the cosmos.
Every other member of our species, past and present, from Cleopatra to Einstein, no matter what his or her terrestrial accomplishments, will be consigned to a far less desirable fate, best left unspecified.
In the meantime, God/Jesus may or may not intervene in our world, as He pleases, curing the occasional end-stage cancer (or not), answering an especially earnest prayer for guidance (or not), consoling the bereaved (or not), through His perfectly wise and loving agency.

Just how many scientific laws would be violated by this scheme? One is tempted to say “all of them.”

"... And you stare at me
In your Jesus Christ pose
Arms held out
Like you've been carrying a load
And you swear to me
You don't want to be my slave
But you're staring at me again
Like I need to be saved, saved ..."

Jesus Christ Pose by Soundgarden

Pregnant with knowledge

2011-04-17T12:17:00.000-07:00

Again, from Roger Ebert's Journal, on the importance of reading:

"... At the end of the day, some authors will endure and most, including some very good ones, will not. Why do I think reading is important? It is such an effective medium between mind and mind. We think largely in words. A medium made only of words doesn't impose the barrier of any other medium. It is naked and unprotected communication. That's how you get pregnant. May you always be so."

What to do when meeting an alien ...

2011-04-17T01:30:00.000-07:00

From Roger Ebert's Journal:

click to enlarge

Philosophy/Religion Song of the Day: "New Dark Ages" by Bad Religion

2011-04-16T12:23:00.000-07:00

Yeah can you hear the call in our rambling land
Susurrations that can expand beyond all hope of light
and plunge us into into unrelenting night

A pall on truth and reason,
It feels like hunting season
So avoid those lines of sight
and we'll set this right

Welcome to the new dark ages
Yeah, i hope you're living right
These are the new dark ages
And the world might end tonight

Now come ye children one and all, let's heed Ezekiel's call
And bide until the word is good and ripe and get plucked clean out
of sight

The world will be erased
Our kin will be immaculate ejaculate in space
Before the kind of king's love, he'll snatch us
From above, brothers help me sing it

Welcome to the new dark ages
I hope you're living right
These are the new dark ages
And the world might end tonight

So how do you sleep? “ there's nothing to keep“
This is deep
Because we're animals with golden rules
Who ... who can't be moved by rational views yeah

Welcome to the new dark ages
I hope you're living right
Welcome to the new dark ages
And the world might end tonight

"An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it." -- James Michener

The so-called "wrath of God"

2011-03-21T14:15:00.000-07:00

A former Phoenix Mercury (WNBA player) tweeted this Saturday on the subject of the earthquake/tsunami in Japan:

"What if God was tired of the way they treated their own people in there own country! Idk guys he makes no mistakes."

"u just never knw! They did pearl harbor so u can't expect anything less."

And, to add insult to injury, in a remarkable example of Christian condescension, she tried to apologize:

"I wanna apologize to anyone I may hurt or offended during this tragic time," the tweet said. "I didn't realize that my words could be interpreted in the manner which they were. People that knw me would tell u 1st hand I'm a very spiritual person and believe that everything, even disasters happen 4 a reason and that God will shouldn't be questioned

..."

Besides revealing the obvious fact that celebrities should self-edit prior to releasing brain droppings to the world, it brings up the more important subject of religion.

Now, I want to get this out of the way right now -- I'm not intimating that this is how all Christians think. But, by the same token, we all know that this isn't just the lunatic fringe that believes that disasters are God's retribution.

But that isn't even the subject of my post. My beef is with how religion is deemed to be the source of morality when statements like this show it to be something very different. People that are bigoted, or racist, or in Pondexter's case, remarkably ignorant, use the veil of religion to justify themselves. When you feel that God himself is behind something, you have the moral certitude to make statements that an atheist would be pilloried for. After all, "he makes no mistakes". And that's exactly the point. I have no problem with an atheist being judged upon his statements and beliefs. But that is how all people should be judged.

Godless people are deemed to be immoral and anarchistic, but I suggest that most are the exact opposite. I believe that all my actions and statements must be held to an even higher standard and must stand on their own. I don't have the luxury of misinterpreting some ancient text of dubious origin to justify a belief that outside the protection of religion would be considered bigoted.

If any other segment of society had done the atrocities to children that Catholic priests have, imagine what would have happened.

Within the framework of religion, it is considered godly and moral to be against gays, or to subjugate women. Under any other criteria, those would be hate crimes or speech.

I am not saying that religious people are universally immoral. I am saying that they are not moral because they are religious. Religion does not define one's morality. A religious person can be good or bad, as can an atheist.

And natural occurrences like floods, and hurricanes, and earthquakes are not caused by God. And they do not occur to present a moral or punish us for sin. They may present a lesson or warning to us insomuch as our actions or inaction may contribute to them or our lack of preparation leads to additional suffering. If one feels that God is infallible and omnipotent, then every happening has to mean something. But most things don't mean anything. Life can be beautiful and wondrous sometimes ... but it also can be a cruel bitch. Learn from life, but don't attach causality to random events. To think that God would punish the Japanese for Pearl Harbor while letting the US off the hook for Hiroshoma, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. is an example of not only Christian blindness but also a scary kind of nationalism.

So, Cappie, keep your tweets and your religion to yourself. You are entitled to your opinion and your free speech, but you are also entitled to be criticized for such.

There must be some kinda way out of here ...

2011-03-15T22:28:00.000-07:00

"There must be some kinda way out of here"
Said the joker to the thief
"There's too much confusion
I can't get no relief ..."

Lyrics by Bob Dylan. Song covered numerous times, most notably by Jimi Hendrix

I'm not posting this for any particular reason. No tie-in to a current political or cultural event. The excerpt I quoted above certainly describes how I feel sometimes about work, life, the world ... whatever. But, I'm just posting it because it's a damn good song.

I just heard Hendrix's version on the radio the other day and realized how much I love the song. Dylan's version is great as well, but Hendrix imbued the song with a fire that even Dylan had to acknowledge. Dylan has even admitted that the manner in which Hendrix played the song informs his own performances since that time.

The song has obvious allusions to the Bible (as do other Dylan songs), but what strikes me is the out-of-order manner in which the lyrics unfold. The thematic start of the song is at the end, both lyrically and musically. Kinda like you would expect if Quentin Tarantino wrote a rock song. This propels the song forward and gives one a sense of anticipation or urgency for it to repeat. It's this sense of bottled-up repetition that makes it perfect as a recurring plot element in season 3 and 4 of Battlestar Galactica and really an encapsulation of the series as a whole.

"All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."

This is a performance by Bear McCreary, the composer for the series, with a little help from Katee Sackhoff (Starbuck):

Tyranny of the Fortunate

2011-03-12T21:53:00.000-08:00

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." -- John Maynard Keynes

Is it any wonder that we've lost our way (not that we ever really knew "our way") when tragedy happens and the things we are worried about are our stock portfolios? Capitalism is broken. Our media is broken. People are broken.

Larry Kudlow Devalues Human Life With Japan Earthquake Freudian Slip

In these tough economic times, isn’t it nice to know that calamitous natural disasters needn't have an adverse affect on your investment portfolio? After the 8.9-magnitude earthquake in Japan failed to induce a market nosedive, CNBC’s Larry Kudlow expressed his relief in terms that seemed to appall even his fellow cheerleaders for capitalism: “The human toll here,” he declared, “looks to be much worse than the economic toll and we can be grateful for that.”

I detest the trolls that populate these channels and I detest the sheep that hang on their every word. Go and get real job. Build something. Make something. Help someone. Don't profit from the suffering of others. We need to stop rewarding people for just moving money around. Insurance agents, mortgage lenders, bankers, stock brokers, venture capitalists, CEO's ... my garbage man contributes more to society than you do.

"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." -- Bertrand Russell

Political Song of the Day: BOOM! by System of a Down

2011-03-06T14:13:00.000-08:00

I've been walking through your streets
Where all your moneys are earned
Where all your buildings crying
And clueless neckties working
Revolving fake-lawn houses
Housing all your fears
Desensitized by TV
Overbearing advertising
God of consumerism
And all your crooked pictures looking good
Mirrorism, filtering information for the public eye
Designed for profiteering
Your neighbor, what a guy.

BOOM!

Every time you drop the bomb, you kill the god your child has born-

BOOM!

Modern globalization
Coupled with condemnations
Unnecessary death
Matador corporations
Puppeting your frustrations with a blinded flag
Manufacturing consent is the name of the game
The bottom line is money
Nobody gives a FUCK
Four thousand hungry children leave us per hour from starvation
While billions are spent on bombs
Creating death showers

BOOM!

Every time you drop the bomb, you kill the god your child has born-

BOOM!

Boom-Boom-Boom-Boom-Boom-Boom-Boom!

Why must we kill our own kind?
...

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." -- Noam Chomsky

Look for me, Mom, I'll be there ...

2011-02-27T08:42:00.000-08:00

" ... Where there's a fight 'gainst the blood and hatred in the air
Look for me Mom I'll be there
Wherever there's somebody fightin' for a place to stand
Or decent job or a helpin' hand
Wherever somebody's strugglin' to be free
Look in their eyes Mom you'll see me.""

The Ghost of Tom Joad by Bruce Springsteen

100,000 strong in Wisconsin and huge groups across the country protesting the Wisconsin governor's (and by extension the Republican Party) attempt to bust public unions. No matter what they say, it's not about the budget. It's about the rich of one party (Koch brothers and the Republicans) breaking up the biggest funding source of the other party (unions and the Democrats). Remove their funding and the ability of the common man to organize and you will have a self-perpetuating Republican majority that can't be stopped.

But, maybe ... just maybe, the Republicans shot their load too soon. Underestimating the resolve of 14 brave state senators and countless people across the country that make up the backbone of the working class (teachers, firemen, cops and your average private union worker).

Those that are trying to sell you "liberty" and "freedom" are encouraging the exact opposite ... a government funded and dictated to by a small group of huge corporations whose goal this week may be fiscal in nature. But next week, when they have effective control, it will be the removing of environmental and civil rights protections.

We have a choice.

"Let the workers organize. Let the toilers assemble. Let their crystallized voice proclaim their injustices and demand their privileges. Let all thoughtful citizens sustain them, for the future of Labor is the future of America." -- John L. Lewis(President of the UMWA from 1920-1960)

2011 VNSA Used Book Sale

2011-02-18T23:04:00.000-08:00

Finds from our yearly trek to the VNSA Used Book Sale:

Sci-Fi
Anathem by Neal Stephenson
The Carpet Makers by Andreas Eschbach
River of Gods by Ian McDonald
Singularity's Ring by Paul Melko
The Forge of God by Greg Bear
Ender in Exile by Orson Scott Card
Earthman Come Home by James Blish (1955 1st Ed.)

Science Non-Fiction

"Dragons of Eden", "Cosmic Connection", "Billions and Billions ..." all by Carl Sagan
Black Holes and Baby Universes ... by Stephen Hawking
Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes by Alex Vilenkin
Fermat's Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the World's Greatest Mathematical Problem by Simon Singh
The Origin of Humankind by Richard Leakey
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life by Daniel Dennett

The Third Chimpazee ... by Jared Diamond

General Non-Fiction

Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation by Jonathan Kozol

May Man Prevail? by Erich Fromm
Selected Papers of Bertrand Russell ... by Bertrand Russell
The Edge of the Sea by Rachel Carson
The Great Unraveling ... by Paul Krugman

"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" -- Ray Bradbury

ASU Origins Great Debate: What is life?

2011-02-16T20:41:00.000-08:00

I was lucky enough to have attended the ASU Origins Great Debate: What is Life? at Arizona State University's Gammage Auditorium (a great venue designed by Frank Lloyd Wright) this past Saturday. Fittingly, February 12th is Charles Darwin's birthday. I had a great seat, front row off to the side a bit.

Project director Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist and famous author) spoke for about 10 minutes introducing each of the panelists: noted atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, Nobel Prize winning chemist Sidney Altman, Nobel Prize winning Lee Hartwell, NASA planetary scientist Chris McKay, theoretical physicist and author Paul Davies, and Biologist and entrepreneur J. Craig Venter. The debate began with each of the 6 panelists speaking for 5 to 10 minutes on their own, ostensibly to define what life meant in their opinion. Each of them took a different tact, predictably. Some said what differentiates life from something inanimate. Other explained how you would look for life.

Richard Dawkins spoke first, defining life it as that which can not only reproduce but also pass along its genetic code. Altman followed Dawkins and did not differentiate significantly from his definition. The next speaker, Lee Hartwell,a physician by profession, was perhaps the most out of place. His expertise is in cancer research and he was obviously intelligent but, self-admittedly, he did not have particular insight to this subject.

McKay was next and was perhaps my favorite of the speakers. The area at NASA which he works on pertains to looking for life on other planets (and moons). He spoke on several criteria that they look for to try and detect life but the most interesting to me was in how life affects other things on a planet. The geology and weather of Earth are completely different because of the existence of life. Oxygen wouldn't exist without plant life. Geologic characteristics such as fossil fuels and limestone would not exist without organic life. Maybe because of my education (aerospace engineering) and childhood dream to be an astronaut, McKay spoke to a lot of my aspirations.

Davies talked about the fact that life that would not necessarily be the carbon-based forms we know of. He even went out on a limb and said that non-carbon-based life would be discovered on Earth within 10 years. The study that was released last year was misinterpreted to have indicated that such life had already been found. Rather, the study indicated that a life form was found that scientists were able to substitute phosphorus for arsenic and it adapted. It's still significant in that it shows that life doesn't have to be carbon-based but nothing like this has been found natively.

The last to speak was Venter and he didn't really try to define what life was but seemed more intent on talking about how he was going to create artificial life. The relationship between Venter and the other scientists here is much like it is anywhere else ... contentious. He does not hide his disdain for theoretical scientists. If you can't experiment with something in the lab, it's not worthy of Venter. Research for knowledge's sake is not really his modus operandi but rather will it give him publicity. I don't want it to sound like I'm completely down on Venter. I'm not. People like him definitely have a place and I do believe his research is going to lead to advancements in curing of diseases. But he needs to be tempered by others lest he turn into a modern Dr. Frankenstein. Venter, for those that don't already know, was the first to map the human genome.

The event ended with a round-table between the panelists and Krauss. Nothing earth-shattering was revealed except for the general disdain that Venter has for regular scientists and they for him. Krauss brought up artificial intelligence to get the others take on whether that is life. It was his belief that that A.I. is the future of the human race. With no real concerted effort to advance space exploration, the problems of population growth and depleted resources are going to make our own planet unlivable in less time than some would believe (or blindly hope).

The amount of people attending what one would expect to be a dry scientific forum among erudite crusty professors with primarily British accents gives one hope that our youth value things other than reality TV and mysticism. This was not a talk about religion but it is hard for any discussion on science or the nature of life to not address that elephant in the room. When discussing the age of the Earth, Krauss made a joke about those states that lean towards the Creationist view of the age of the planet. And judging by the thunderous applause for his joke, I'd suspect that there was not a single soul in attendance with the belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

The real rock star of the panel, Dawkins, attracts adulation that seems incongruous for a distinctly middle-age Oxford type. And, I'm not making this up, I am convinced that several attractive young ladies in dresses and high-heels in the front row were Dawkins groupies. They even ducked out of the talk a few minutes early to assure themselves a spot near the front of the line to get their books signed. I would have liked to have gotten my book signed as well, but by the time I got out, his line was about 500 deep. We're not talking about Peyton Manning or Derek Jeter here. We're talking about an atheist evolutionary biologist. I settled for getting Lawrence Krauss' autograph and he was exceedingly gracious, talking to me a for a bit, shaking my hand and personalizing his signature.

I figure I'll get another shot at Dawkins as he's already been to ASU Origins symposiums at least three times and seems to be a friend of Krauss. My seat was on the side of the stage where Dawkins was and when he stepped to the podium, he was no more than 10 feet from me. Pretty heady stuff for an evolution and atheist nerd like myself.

I find it gratifying to go to places where smart people speak honestly and politely disagree on some points when necessary but agree on larger ones. Most importantly:
- the need for rational thought
- the need for math and science education
- the need to honestly address the issues of our planet
- to have our investigations and research lead us where they may instead of having a result pre-ordained and fit the facts to it

I'm looking forward to more of the ASU Origins events and plan on attending the next one in April, ASU Origins Project 2011 Science & Culture Festival.

Life Looks for Life - Carl Sagan

2011-02-09T13:07:00.000-08:00

Life Looks for Life - Carl Sagan. Best viewed at YouTube at 720p.

"It’s better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." -– Carl Sagan

Just Because Something's Unexplained Doesn't Mean It's Supernatural

2011-02-05T18:59:00.000-08:00

Houdini's Skeptical Advice: Just Because Something's Unexplained Doesn't Mean It's Supernatural

Before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not in this world

By Michael Shermer

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was the brilliant author of the wildly popular Sherlock Holmes detective stories, which celebrated the triumph of reason and logic over superstition and magical thinking. Unfortunately, the Scottish physician-turned-writer did not apply his creation’s cognitive skills when it came to the blossoming spiritualism movement of the early 1900s: he fell blindly for the crude hoax of the Cottingley Fairies photographs and regularly attended séances to make contact with family members who had died in the First World War, especially his son Kingsley. Perhaps fittingly, Conan Doyle’s fame brought him into company with the greatest magician of his age, Harry Houdini, who did not suffer fakes gladly.

In the spring of 1922 Conan Doyle visited Houdini in his New York City home, whereupon the magician set out to demonstrate that slate writing—a favorite method among mediums for receiving messages from the dead, who allegedly moved a piece of chalk across a slate—could be done by perfectly prosaic means. Houdini had Conan Doyle hang a slate from anywhere in the room so that it was free to swing in space. He presented the author with four cork balls, asking him to pick one and cut it open to prove that it had not been altered. He then had Conan Doyle pick another ball and dip it into a well of white ink. While it was soaking, Houdini asked his visitor to go down the street in any direction, take out a piece of paper and pencil, write a question or a sentence, put it back in his pocket and return to the house. Conan Doyle complied, scribbling, “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin,” a riddle from the Bible’s book of Daniel, meaning, “It has been counted and counted, weighed and divided.”

How appropriate, for what happened next defied explanation, at least in Conan Doyle’s mind. Houdini had him scoop up the ink-soaked ball in a spoon and place it against the slate, where it momentarily stuck before slowly rolling across the face, spelling out “M,” “e,” “n,” “e,” and so forth until the entire phrase was completed, at which point the ball dropped to the ground. According to William Kalush and Larry Sloman in their 2006 biography The Secret Life of Houdini (Atria Books), the Master Mystifier then dealt Conan Doyle the lesson that he—and by implication anyone impressed by such mysteries—needed to hear:

Sir Arthur, I have devoted a lot of time and thought to this illusion ... I won’t tell you how it was done, but I can assure you it was pure trickery. I did it by perfectly normal means. I devised it to show you what can be done along these lines. Now, I beg of you, Sir Arthur, do not jump to the conclusion that certain things you see are necessarily “supernatural,” or the work of “spirits,” just because you cannot explain them....

Lamentably, Sir Arthur continued to believe that Houdini had psychic powers and spiritual connections that he employed in his famous escapes.

This problem is called the argument from ignorance (“it must be true because it has not been proven false”) or sometimes the argument from personal incredulity (“because I cannot imagine a natural explanation, there cannot be one”). Such fallacious reasoning comes up so often in my encounters with believers that I conclude it must be a product of a brain unsatisfied with doubt; as nature abhors a vacuum, so, too, does the brain abhor no explanation. It therefore fills in one, no matter how unlikely. Thus do normal anomalies become paranormal, natural phenomena become supernatural, unidentified flying objects become extraterrestrial spacecraft and chance events become conspiracies.

Houdini’s principle states that just because something is unexplained does not mean that it is paranormal, supernatural, extraterrestrial or conspiratorial. Before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not in this world, for science is grounded in naturalism, not supernaturalism, paranormalism or any other unnecessarily complicated explanations.

The particular anecdote may be irrelevant, but noted skeptic Shermer's conclusion,

"This problem is called the argument from ignorance (“it must be true because it has not been proven false”) or sometimes the argument from personal incredulity (“because I cannot imagine a natural explanation, there cannot be one”). Such fallacious reasoning ... must be a product of a brain unsatisfied with doubt; as nature abhors a vacuum, so, too, does the brain abhor no explanation. It therefore fills in one, no matter how unlikely ..."

certainly is not. While most would take this to be aimed at religion (and it certainly is), it can also be applied to conspiracy theorists, new agers, UFO nuts, ghosts chasers, etc.

Any advanced race that would ever come to Earth would have technology and knowledge that would seem indistinguishable from magic to us. But that doesn't mean it is magic. Shermer focuses on points I've always tried to make here. Most notably, doubt is not a bad thing. Get over your own mental prejudices. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it is supernatural (or divine). It just means that we don't have the tools to understand it yet. And that's not a discouraging thing ... that's an exciting thing. It means that there is always more to learn.

Top 10 Movies of 2010

2011-01-26T22:18:00.000-08:00

I put in a late push to watch as many of the Oscar-worthy movies released in 2010 as possible, so that I might be more prepared for my top 10. In past years, some great movies have been left out because I didn't get the chance to see them in time. Here goes:

(10) Unstoppable -- Your basic popcorn movie but with good chemistry between Denzel Washington and Chris Pine. Director Tony Scott, if nothing else, is not bad with action flicks and has had a few films that even rise above that (True Romance, Enemy of the State).

(9) Harry Potter: The Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 -- Basically the first half of a particularly long movie, but it sets the scene well for this summer's finale. The youngsters acting skills have rounded out quite nicely while the veteran British actors do what they do best.

(8) The King's Speech -- From a strictly historical perspective, this is a fascinating story and gives you a better appreciation of the role of King George in World War II and how different it could have been if his brother had not abdicated the throne. But beyond that, it's a perfect excuse to witness two awesome actors (Rush and Firth) go at it.

(7) The Town -- Who knew that mediocre actor Ben Affleck would turn into such a fine director? A gritty crime drama with a fantastic sense of place. Looking forward to more from Affleck in the future. And he actually acted quite well in this one.

(6) True Grit -- True Grit, like all Coen Brothers films, has the vernacular of the time and place perfect ... something that has been most evident in films like Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou. But also with the essential Coen twist - that sense of irony. The sense that you are getting a knowing wink from the directors and that you are privy to some inside joke. All the actors are great in this, but I was particularly impressed by the child actor, Hailee Steinfeld.

This is probably the most straightforward of all the Coen films, but masterfully done and beautifully shot.

(5) Inception -- Visually original with a plot intriguing enough to keep you interested. Maybe not as odd as other Christopher Nolan fare (most notably Memento), but still a very good film. I am rarely disappointed by Leo DiCaprio's choice of films or his performances in them.

(4) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo/The Girl Who Played with Fire -- For those that don't normally check out foreign films, do yourself a favor and check out these thoroughly original Swedish films based on the Steig Larsson books. Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth Salander is riveting and an unforgettable character. Looking forward to seeing her in the Ridley Scott sci-fi project, Prometheus, due out in 2012.

(3) The Social Network -- One can question the fidelity of the facts of Mark Zuckerberg's life as told in the Social Network. But it would be hard to question the use of the story as a metaphor for the nature of relationships in the modern age. Well-acted and wonderfully directed by David Fincher. Great music by Trent Reznor.

(2) Exit Through the Gift Shop - My favorite documentary of the year ... or is it (a documentary)? Directed (or staged) by street artist Banksy. A fascinating and funny study into the nature of art, the art scene, hype and documentaries. What is "truth" in a documentary? Is "truth" about facts or is it about revealing some kind of truth through an artful lie?

A quote during the movie by Banksy's former spokesman Steve Lazarides says it all, "I think the joke is on... I don’t know who the joke is on, really. I don’t even know if there is a joke."

(1) 127 Hours A story of adventure, ingenuity and of opting out of the rat-race ...a perfect mixture for me. Plus, its directed by one of my favorite directors, Danny Boyle. Much like Into the Wild appealed to me a few years ago, 127 Hours explores a lot of the same areas of nature, society, and success. I love movies that make you examine what the hell you are doing with your life and if you are living it for someone else's definition of success. James Franco is incredible and my pick for best actor.

Honorable mention: Waiting for Superman, Creation, Black Swan, Alice in Wonderland, Green Zone, Book of Eli, Shutter Island, Salt, Tron: Legacy

Several good kid stories that I liked: Despicable Me, Toy Story 3, Megamind, How to Train Your Dragon

A couple of 2009 movies that I didn't see in time for my list of that year: In the Loop,
Moon

Great Debate: What is Life? at ASU

2011-01-25T14:19:00.000-08:00

Awesome! I'm going to get to see Richard Dawkins speak in person again ... this time from the front row.

"Join a panel of renowned scientists and public intellectuals, including evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, human genome sequencer J. Craig Venter, Nobel Laureate molecular biologist Sidney Altman, NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, Nobel Laureate biologist Lee Hartwell, and renowned physicist Paul Davies as they discuss some of the most profound questions in science today: What is life? When, where, and how did life begin? Can and should we create life in the laboratory?"

Hitch 22 ... on outrage and irony

2011-01-15T16:28:00.000-08:00

Reading the very first words of Christopher Hitchens' autobiography, Hitch 22, I knew I was going to like the book,

"I can claim copyright only in myself, and occasionally in those who are either dead or have written about the same events, or who have a decent expectation of anonymity, or who are such appalling public shits that they have forfeited their right to bitch."

Irreverence and a unique command of the English language have marked all of his writings, and this was no exception.

I can respect Hitchens not because I always agree with him, which I don't, but rather because I know at least he has deeply thought about the positions he takes. As he says, "it matters not what you think, but how you think. This manner in which he thinks is admirable and something I strive for myself,

"It's quite a task to combat the absolutists and the relativists at the same time: to maintain that there is no totalitarian solution while also insisting that, yes, we on our side also have unalterable convictions and are willing to fight for them. After various past allegiances, I have come to believe that Karl Marx was the rightest of all when he recommended continual doubt and self-criticism. Membership in the skeptical faction or tendency is not at all a soft option. The defense of science and reason is the great imperative of our time ... To be an unbeliever is not to be merely “open-minded.” It is, rather, a decisive admission of uncertainty that is dialectically connected to the repudiation of the totalitarian principle, in the mind as well as in politics."

Certainly, his takes on Iraq (for the invasion) and Bill Clinton (would have testified during impeachment against) I find almost indefensible. But he goes to great links to do just that, especially in the case of Iraq ... a whole chapter. Leaving that whole chapter out of this book would have improved it greatly. And there is obviously room to leave it out, as Hitchens left whole areas of his life out of the book, including his first wife and several of his children, and his younger brother, columnist Peter Hitchens.

Some reviewers have rightly called out Hitchens for being a inveterate name-dropper ... and he is. But I don't mind it so much. When you have led such an interesting life and have had such interesting company: Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie, Gore Vidal, etc., you can be forgiven. His stories are funny and he is not afraid to poke fun at himself or to admit dalliances that others might be reluctant to admit, including homosexual encounters in his youth. His well known propensity for drinking, among other vices, is well represented as well.

Several chapters are spent on his friends, including Amis, James Fenton and Rushdie. Many of his early friendships were strained or outright ended because of Hitchens' gradual turning away from his progressive (and to a certain extent, Marxist) roots. For many, his cheerleading for the Iraq invasion was the final straw. His position, while regrettable in my opinion, shows his willingness to follow his thoughts to their logical end. It may be hard on relationships, but it's probably a necessary choice for a public intellectual. He's not swayed by religion or parochiality or even family and friends.

His autobiography goes to great lengths to recount his schooling and his parents. When describing the British public schools (the American equivalent of private schools) and his experiences there, Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall (Pt2) came to mind,

"... We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone ..."

With his father, a military man, his words are respectful but detached. With his mother, someone he found to be Jewish after her death, affection is more apparent.

One of the "four horsemen" of modern atheism, along with Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Hitchens has the virtue of being the only non-academic, though he's obviously well-read. That detachment gives him the leeway to be more biting and distinctly more funny than the other three. That's not to say he is my favorite, at least on that subject. I've always been partial to Sam Harris, and then probably Dawkins.

Hitch 22 touches on his atheist contemporaries a little bit, and in glowing terms, "I feel absurdly honored to be grouped in the public mind with great teachers and scholars such as Richard Dawkins…, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris ..." Largely, the book is not about his atheism at all. The only time he touches on it is in the final chapter. But when he does, it is to great effect and one of the reasons that I admire Hitchens. On the "meaning of life" for non-believers,

"About once or twice every month I engage in public debates with those whose pressing need it is to woo and to win the approval of supernatural beings. Very often, when I give my view that there is no supernatural dimension, and certainly not one that is only or especially available to the faithful, and that the natural world is wonderful enough—and even miraculous enough if you insist—I attract pitying looks and anxious questions. How, in that case, I am asked, do I find meaning and purpose in life? How does a mere and gross materialist, with no expectation of a life to come, decide what, if anything, is worth caring about?

Depending on my mood, I sometimes but not always refrain from pointing out what a breathtakingly insulting and patronizing question this is. (It is on a par with the equally subtle inquiry: Since you don't believe in our god, what stops you from stealing and lying and raping and killing to your heart's content?) Just as the answer to the latter question is: self-respect and the desire for the respect of others—while in the meantime it is precisely those who think they have divine permission who are truly capable of any atrocity—so the answer to the first question falls into two parts. A life that partakes even a little of friendship, love, irony, humor, parenthood, literature, and music, and the chance to take part in battles for the liberation of others cannot be called 'meaningless' except if the person living it is also an existentialist and elects to call it so. It could be that all existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one's everyday life as if this were so. Whereas if one sought to define meaninglessness and futility, the idea that a human life should be expended in the guilty, fearful, self-obsessed propitiation of supernatural nonentities… but there, there. Enough."

Though Hitch 22 was written prior to his discovery that he had esophageal cancer, his words clearly envision his eventual passing, "The clear awareness of having been born into a losing struggle need not lead one into despair. I do not especially like the idea that one day I shall be tapped on the shoulder and informed, not that the party is over but that it is most assuredly going on—only henceforth in my absence. (It's the second of those thoughts: the edition of the newspaper that will come out on the day after I have gone, that is the more distressing.) Much more horrible, though, would be the announcement that the party was continuing forever, and that I was forbidden to leave. Whether it was a hellishly bad party or a party that was perfectly heavenly in every respect, the moment that it became eternal and compulsory would be the precise moment that it began to pall."

Hitchens has lived on his own terms, and shows a desire to leave this Earth on those same terms. We should all be so lucky.

"Your favorite virtue? An appreciation for irony."

"I hope never to lose the access to outrage that I felt then."

2011-01-11T20:31:00.000-08:00

I'd have to say that, in general, the response to this last weekend's shootings in Tucson by politicians of both sides and the public has been the appropriate response - contemplation, sympathy, and calls for more tempered dialogue. Of course, you knew you could count on Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to take it to new levels of narcissism and have their own little pity party. But, I knew it was just a matter of time before you'd have a few people go completely off the reservation. That's what's so entertaining about the far Right, especially my own state's far Right. Faced with a stupid and unfortunate event that calls for solemnity, they will double-down. In their book, their is no inappropriate response. If you are catching heat because inflamed rhetoric might have even remotely and indirectly influenced someone, then ratchet up the rhetoric and ratchet up the stupid:

AZ State Rep. Jack Harper, (Repub.) -- "When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim. The socialists of today are only one gun confiscation away from being the communists of tomorrow."

And if a situation calls for people to review our gun laws, then, of course, the response should be to ... promptly go out and buy more guns: Sales in Glock Pistols Up After Arizona Shootings

It's straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. Make a negative into a positive. I'd like to say I was surprised, but I'm not.

I read the news today, oh boy ...

2011-01-09T07:32:00.000-08:00

I had a whole bunch of ideas on how to express my feelings and thoughts on yesterday's senseless shooting in Tucson of Arizona Congressmen Gabrielle Giffords, a federal judge, a 9 year old girl and many others. Then I watched Keith Olbermann's Special Comment. I could not have said it better ... and I won't try:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Small Town Iowa - Know Your Enemy

2011-01-04T20:17:00.000-08:00

Just a day or two removed from our trip to Iowa for the holidays. A good trip, cold, but family was nice. And I didn't get in any awkward conversations about religion or politics with the in-laws. I played nice. Wanted to get over to Chi-town to see some of gang, but unfortunately it was not to be. Weather, health and time conspired to prevent it.

I got quite a bit of reading done, Hitch 22 by Christoper Hitchens (review soon to come) and Zero History by William Gibson.

I went walking around town just about every day. Osceola is not so different from where I grew up (Red Oak) or any other small Midwestern town. The small town checklist? Less than 5,000 people, little industry, a ridiculously large Wal-Mart, Indian gaming, decaying but interesting old buildings:

Largely white populations (Osceola 95.73%), a sinking economy with little hope for the future. Deprived of a longtime enemy,

they are forced to look for new ones. But, instead of looking at that Wal-Mart or casino on the edge of town ... those things that emasculate the community and render it generic and dependent ... they look elsewhere. Iowa, at once encouraging because of the law to allow gay marriages, at the next moment discouraging because of the drive to repeal the judges that made it happen.

And small town Iowan looks at immigrants. You don't have to go far to hear the phrase "damn Mexicans". (I didn't have to leave the house). It's too bad, but perhaps destined to happen. Osceola is named for the Seminole of the same name,

. Osceola was captured under a truce flag and died soon after,

To quote BSG, "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."

"From a certain point of view our real enemy, the true troublemaker, is inside." -- Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama quotes (Dalai Lama, b.1935)

You can't be serious!

2011-01-04T17:59:00.000-08:00

My FB "friend" with her latest status:

This is a status I just could NOT pass up: When you carry the Bible, Satan gets a headache. When you open it, he collapses. When he sees you reading it, he faints. When he sees you living it, he flees. And just when you're about to re-post this, he'll try to discourage you. I JUST DEFEATED HIM! Copy and re-post if you can...AMEN!!!

True Christians, you must not allow those among you to post things like this. It does not exactly sing out intelligence. I don't respond to her on Facebook because there is no possible way to. This kind of person has absolutely no grasp on reality.

'Happy Holidays' ... there, I said it

2010-12-18T23:16:00.000-08:00

I swore to myself that I wasn't going to talk about Christmas on my blog this year. I respect the fact that it means different stuff to different people. And that's OK. What I don't appreciate is the fact that all people don't have such an understanding attitude. Exhibit 1: one of my Facebook "friends":

"Please don't tell me 'Happy Holidays'. There is only on reason that I celebrate right now and it is because of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. 'Merry Christmas' is appropriate:)"

Hey, I celebrate Christmas because I like seeing family and friends, having good food and maybe just a little drink. I enjoy seeing the magic of Christmas in my son's eyes. And 99% of that magic has nothing to do with Christ, even though my son is currently a Christian. But if your enjoyment of Christmas relies on others kissing your sanctimonious ass, then you can kindly kiss my heathen ass.

It's not about being politically correct for me. I don't care if you say 'Merry Christmas' to me. I won't be offended. I've been known to say it myself on occasion. But don't tell me what to say or to think.

I'm beginning to really hate Facebook and if this continues, I will hate 90% of my friends and my family. But, then, maybe they are really not my friends. The people that I know really care about me and that I respect in turn would never post something like that. Maybe my friends list just needs some housecleaning.

Some other atheist takes on Christmas:

Richard Dawkins on Christmas

Christopher Hitchens on Christmas

Political Song of the Day - Annihilation by A Perfect Circle

2010-12-17T22:10:00.000-08:00

From dehumanization to arms production,
For the benefit of the nation or its destruction
Power is power, the law of the land,
Those living for death will die by their own hand,

Life's no ordeal if you come to terms,
Reject the system dictating the norms

From dehumanization to arms production,
To hasten the nation towards its destruction
Power is power, the law of the land,
Those living for death will die by their own hand,

Life's no ordeal if you come to terms,
Reject the system dictating the norms

From dehumanization to arms production,
To hasten the nation towards its destruction
Power is power, the law of the land,
Those living for death will die by their own hand,

Life's no ordeal if you come to terms,
Reject the system dictating the norms

From dehumanization to arms production,
To hasten this nation towards its destruction,

It's your choice, your choice, your choice, your choice,
Peace or annihilation

Song originally by the American hardcore band Crucifix. Movie clip is Lord of War.

Movie Review: 127 Hours

2010-12-10T06:04:00.000-08:00

I saw a great movie this last weekend ... sure to be one of my year end Top 10, Danny Boyle's 127 Hours about adventurer Aron Ralston. For those that don't know, Ralston is the climber/hiker that found himself between a "rock and a hard place", literally, a few years ago and made a decision, to save his life, that most of us could not do in a million years. Hiking in a remote canyon in Utah, he becomes trapped in a crevice with his arm pinned between a large rock and the side of the crevice. "127 hours" is the amount of time that he spent in that position with minimal food and water and no warm clothing. Resourceful and with a sense of theatricality, he had both a still camera and video camera to document his trials.

127 Hours appealed to me because of the aesthetic of the subject of the film, much like one of my favorite films, Into The Wild. That aesthetic of the beauty and harshness of nature without sentimentality.

The comparisons to Into the Wild are inevitable and appropriate. Both Ralston and Chris McCandless (of Into the Wild) were intelligent loners who escaped civilization willingly even though they would have been successful in the business world. They both took a perverse pride in their independence. On many occasions, each would disappear without even telling their family or friends. During their last moments of despair, they came to appreciate others more than they had before. That crisis-caused clarity also revealed to them that their predicaments were culminations of the paths that they had set for themselves.

Ralston is played by the great young actor, James Franco. Franco's acting is largely solo with one encounter with some attractive female hikers. A lesser actor could make this film unwatchable but Franco manages to add levity and depth to a performance that will be compared to Hank's in Castaway or maybe this year's Buried with Ryan Reynolds. I haven't seen Buried yet, but I think Franco is much better than Hanks, at least for these two performances.

The scenery is gorgeous, shot on location in Utah. Boyle, as is his wont, is a bit unconventional and used two different cinematographers. The scenes in the crevice have even more realism to them largely because Franco and Boyle were privy to Ralston's own video diary. Prior to them viewing it, only family and friends had seen the video and, to the best of my knowledge, the Ralston family has no intention of ever releasing it.

Like a lot of Boyle's movies, most notably Trainspotting and Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours sometimes plays like a music video with flashy editing and jumpin' music. 127 shares Oscar-winning composer A.R. Rahman with Slumdog, and he does a great job in this movie as well.

Now, if you don't know the climax of the real-life story and have not seen the movie yet, then stop reading as I'm going to discuss the "money" scene, as it were.

-----------------------------------------

In real life, Ralston, to save his own life, cut off his own arm. How to portray that on screen had to have been an interesting problem for Boyle, but I believe he did it perfectly. It has both technical fidelity and emotional fidelity. Considering the graphic nature of the dismemberment, you would think it was gratuitous. But, because you are so invested in the story and Ralston's fight for life, you not only want to see him do it, you NEED to see him do it. That's a a remarkable achievement by Boyle and Franco.

127 Hours is not a depressing movie, despite what has to happen. It is funny, sad, and uplifting without being a Hollywood "happy ending" cliché. I love the effect that the most successful foreign directors have had on the film industry (Boyle, Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, Paul Greengrass, etc.). Grade: A

Also, check out Reel Fanatic's great review and discussion: Review: Danny Boyle's exhilarating "127 Hours"

In Her Defense, I'm Sure the Moose Had It Coming

2010-12-09T20:02:00.000-08:00

In Her Defense, I'm Sure the Moose Had It Coming

By screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The West Wing) at the Huffington Post

"Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."

You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go fuck ourselves now.

The snotty quote was posted by Sarah Palin on (like all the great frontier women who've come before her) her Facebook page to respond to the criticism she knew and hoped would be coming after she hunted, killed and carved up a Caribou during a segment of her truly awful reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, broadcast on The-Now-Hilariously-Titled Learning Channel.

I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it's hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don't think it is, and here's why.

Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.

I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical. I don't watch snuff films and you make them. You weren't killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals. I can make the distinction between the two of us but I've tried and tried and for the life of me, I can't make a distinction between what you get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing. I'm able to make the distinction with no pangs of hypocrisy even though I get happy every time one of you faux-macho shitheads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face.

So I don't think I will save my condemnation, you phony pioneer girl. (I'm in film and television, Cruella, and there was an insert close-up of your manicure while you were roughing it in God's country. I know exactly how many feet off camera your hair and make-up trailer was.)

And you didn't just do it for fun and you didn't just do it for money. That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain. You knew there'd be a protest from PETA and you knew that would be an opportunity to hate on some people, you witless bully. What a uniter you'd be -- bringing the right together with the far right.

(Let me be the first to say that I abused cocaine and was arrested for it in April 2001. I want to be the first to say it so that when Palin's Army of Arrogant Assholes, bereft of any reasonable rebuttal, write it all over the internet tomorrow they will at best be the second.)

I eat meat, there are leather chairs in my office, Sarah Palin is deranged and The Learning Channel should be ashamed of itself.

The language is a bit harsh, but so is the offense. I'd go even further and say that the comparison to Michael Vick is unfair ... to Michael Vick! Michael Vick served his time and by all accounts is remorseful, humbled and genuinely apologetic. Sarah Palin will never be remorseful, humble or apologetic about anything. And instead of going to jail (or at least back to obscurity), she makes us serve time by having to witness her tired and disingenuous act daily.

"Cruelty and fear shake hands together." -- Honore de Balzac

"One of the ill effects of cruelty is that it makes the bystanders cruel." -- Thomas Fowell Buxton

Papers Please ...

2010-11-28T11:33:00.000-08:00

"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian." -- Pat Paulsen

Witchcraft?

2010-11-27T00:49:00.000-08:00

A relative of mine posted the following comment in passing on their Facebook page last week -- "excuse me but isnt't Harry Potter all about witchcraft? The bible says in deutoromy not to have anything to do with that or does it?" -- Classic. It's flippant, condescending and passive-aggressive all at the same time. And the spelling error of Deuteronomy is hers, not mine. All this lends credence to the recent study showing that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than the pious. That's the beauty of family ... most of the time you really can't tell them how unbelievably clueless they are.

Well, despite the fact that it may damn me to Hell and that I'm endorsing the forces of darkness, we saw Harry Potter: The Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 this past weekend. It was very good. Easily the darkest of the series ... not a surprise if you have read the books. By the movie's very nature, it leaves you hanging. After all, you are splitting the very long book into two movies.

It's gratifying to see the acting progression of the young actors in the series. We've seen them from their debuts 10 years ago through 7 movies. It's no wonder that they have improved considering they have acted alongside just about every great British actor of the last 20 years. Consider who they have co-starred with:

Gary Oldman
Richard Harris
Michael Gambon
Maggie Smith
David Thewlis
Robbie Coltrane
John Hurt
John Cleese
Alan Rickman
Kenneth Branagh
Emma Thompson
Helena Bonham Carter
Jason Isaacs
Brendan Gleeson
David Tennant
Ralph Fiennes
Imelda Staunton
Jim Broadbent

That's ridiculous! There isn't an acting school in existence that would give you that kind of talent to work with.

I've liked all the movies, to varying degrees, with The Prisoner of Azkaban being my favorite for several reasons: 1. The debut of my favorite actor Gary Oldman in the series (also Emma Thompson) 2. Alfonso Cuaron directing (Children of Men) and lastly 3. Incorporating the concept of time travel (one of my favorite sci-fi concepts).

Deathly Hallows is significant for the arc of the characters in that it's the first movie that is not set at Hogwarts at all (at least for the 3 main characters). That fact informs their sense of isolation and, at times, hopelessness.

The Harry Potter stories are mostly kids' stories but have themes (death, sacrifice, friendship, relationships, free will, choice, evil) that are universal and that entertain adults as well. My son and I have both read all the books and regularly re-watch the movies. I realize there are a lot of people that could care less about the movies and books ... and that is fine. To each his own. To a large part, that is my take on the Twilight series. But, if you have been following the books and movies of Harry Potter, you will not be disappointed by this one.

Deathly Hallows Part 1 is a worthy successor and a nice appetizer for the finale that will come out in July. Grade: B+

Now, you know me, I can't leave well enough alone and I'm going to get back to the relative's reference to Deuteronomy and witchcraft. The verse that is commonly taken to criticize witchcraft is Deuteronomy 18: 10-11

There shall not be found among you anyone ....that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

It is seen as idolatry and "spiritual prostitution".

And, it's all a load of bunk. Equating reading or watching a movie about sorcerers to actually being one is a stretch. That's like saying that you are a murderer or adulterer because you watched a story that had people committing those acts.

Don't even get me started how one finds it more important to criticize a franchise that has encouraged a whole generation of children to read and to value friendship and loyalty than to criticize a church that regularly protects pedophiles and promotes hate.

I'm not trying to give philosophical significance to something that is basically just entertainment but when you start down that road, you best be ready to turn that high-powered moral analysis on your own beliefs. In what significant way is one religion different than another ... or even witchcraft? Your God is someone else's false idol. Your pastor is another's sorcerer. Your spirituality is another's magic. "Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off". Indeed. Let's.

2010-11-19T07:26:00.000-08:00

We went to the grand opening of the new White Tank Mountain Library/Visitor Center. Very nice. A lot of environmentally friendly features (solar, low flow water, etc.). But, par for the course for Arizonans, there's always someone that is either painfully clueless or blatantly contradictory (or both):

It's a dual-use facility serving both the library and the park itself as a visitor center. We hike at the White Tank Mountains all the time and will make use of the facility just about every time we go out there.

It's always nice to see a lot of people in a library. Gives one hope that there are actually people that read.

Speaking of reading ... I couldn't resist showing the following picture. We dropped into a used bookstore after going out to eat on Saturday and I saw this sign. Insert your own joke as I will sound snarky and disrespectful if I inject mine. But I think you know where I'm going with this (my Christian friends ... and wife ... need to forgive me):

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." -- Mark Twain

Carl Sagan -- Happy Belated Birthday (11-9-1934)

2010-11-13T23:21:00.000-08:00

I meant to put something up on his birthday but better late than never. For a curious child growing up in the Midwest, Carl Sagan was a rational breath of fresh air. He gave voice to that feeling inside me that things I heard were not quite right and that it was OK to question. Some of his better quotes:

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."

"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. We have a method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only asymptotic approaches to the truth — never there, just closer and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered possibilities. Cleverly designed experiments are the key."

"Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?"

"We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it's forever."

"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science."

"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."

Jumping the Tea Party Shark

2010-11-09T21:39:00.000-08:00

Do you get the feeling that the Tea Party is starting to "jump the shark"? I got that feeling about 5 minutes after it started but it might take others longer. Exhibit 1:

A Valley community's decision to change the way trash is picked up provided further proof of how deeply the nation's anti-government, "tea party"-fueled sentiment is running.

A decision by the Fountain Hills Town Council to hire a single trash hauler and begin a curbside recycling program has been met with angry protests from residents who accuse town leaders of overstepping their bounds and taking a leap toward socialism.

Some even likened it to "Obamacare" for garbage, calling it "trashcare."

An Arizona website affiliated with the Alexandria, Va.,-based Campaign for Liberty, azc4l.com, features an intimidating, cigar-chomping man standing in front of the town's famous fountain next to a story about the issue.

And last week, a flier was circulated around Fountain Hills with an ominous icon and the phrase, "The Hills Will Have Eyes," and that claimed the "Fountain Hills Green Police" checked residents' garbage and recyclables, and as a result, "you are wanted for questioning."

On Thursday, a divided council approved a five-year contract with Allied Waste Services to be the single hauler and begin a recycling program. Residents currently can choose among five haulers and the town has no curbside recycling.

That single issue generated a nearly five-hour public hearing and council debate that went past midnight ...

From Talking Points Memo and the Arizona Republic.

Come on! Anyone of any kind of conscience would have to be thinking that these guys are seriously off their nut. Right? Socialist garbage collection. You have got to be kidding me. If this is the kind of substantive work they will be doing, progressives have nothing to worry about.

I'm almost looking forward to the next couple of years for entertainment value alone. Here's hoping that Michele Bachmann gets a leadership position in the new Republican Congress.

A Perfect Circle concert in Tempe, AZ

2010-11-07T15:20:00.000-08:00

Photos courtesy of SPIN magazine.

For those that don't know who A Perfect Circle is, it is the side band of Maynerd James Keenan, lead singer of the band Tool.

They have not played live in 6 years and the 3-day stop in Tempe is the beginning of a warm-up tour. Each night sees them playing, in its entirety, each of their three albums. I went the first 2 nights at the Marquee Theatre, a small venue ... a glorified club that might have held about 1,000 people. It's quite a change from having seen Tool several times in arenas. But the smaller venue plays well to the strengths of APC, atmospheric music and vocals. Not to say that APC won't "rock out" but a lot of their songs are more about evoking a mood than banging your head.

These shows were mostly for the benefit of the band and re-associating themselves with each other. Everybody in the band has quite a pedigree and numerous other projects: lead singer Keenan (Tool, Puscifer), lead guitarist Billy Howerdel (Ashes Divide, plus has been guitar tech for NIN, GNR, David Bowie, etc.), guitarist James Iha (Smashing Pumpkins), drummer Josh Freese (Vandals, Devo and has played with NIN), and bassist Matt McJunkins (Ashes Divide, Puscifer).

Their tour was started in Tempe because Keenan lives near Sedona and has an award-winning winery there.

Because of the cult following for Tool/APC and the small venue, the tickets sold out quickly and I was lucky to get them. I can't deny the coolness factor of being there on their first show back. As Maynerd commented on Thursday night, because they were performing these albums completely, there were several songs that they had never played in concert before.

APC played probably their most popular album, Mer de Noms, on Thursday (review in SPIN magazine) and their second album, Thirtheenth Step, on Friday (review at AZ Central). For not having played in awhile, I thought they sounded as great as the limitations of the venue would allow (big open cement-floored room with questionable acoustics).

The crowd was about what you would expect, mostly 25 - 35 in age, with some youngsters and oldsters (ahem, myself included) sprinkled in. As having been reviewed in SPIN would indicate, there was a large trendy hipster contingent with ironic t-shirts and disaffected attitudes. I'm neither cool or clever enough to be a hipster, so I played the aging 90's grunge/industrial elitist who regaled people with stories of how cool it was to see Smashing Pumpkins and Pearl Jam open for the Red Hot Chili Peppers ... as if anyone would care.

Highlights for me were Judith off Mer de Noms and a cover of John Lennon's Imagine on Thursday and The Outsider on Friday. The video for Judith (click the title) was directed by David Fincher. The lyrics are fairly harsh towards religion, and rightly so, came out of bitterness by Keenan at the passing of his very devout mother Judith at the age of 59 from an aneurysm. She was left paralyzed in an accident prior to her death and Keenan could not understand how her faith was strengthened during this period:

You're such an inspiration for the ways that I will never ever choose to be
Oh so many ways for me to show you how your savior has abandoned you

Fuck your god
Your lord, your Christ
He did this
Took all you had and
Left you this way
Still you pray, never stray, never
Taste of the fruit
Never thought to question why

It's not like you killed someone
It's not like you drove a hateful spear into his side
Praise the one who left you broken down and paralyzed
He did it all for you
He did it all for you

Oh so many ways for me to show you how your dogma has abandoned you

Pray
To your Christ, to your god
Never taste of the fruit
Never stray, never break, never
Choke on a lie
Even though he's the one who
Did this to you
Never thought to question why

It's not like you killed someone
It's not like you drove a spiteful spear into his side
Talk to Jesus Christ as if He knows the reasons why
He did it all for you
He did it all for you
Did it all for you

Thursday's Setlist:
The Hollow
Magdalena
Rose
Judith
Orestes
3 Libras
Sleeping Beauty
Thomas
Renholder
Thinking Of You
Brena
Over

Encore:
Diary of a Lovesong
Ashes to Ashes
Imagine

Friday's Set List:
The Package
Weak and Powerless
The Noose
Blue
Vanishing
A Stranger
The Outsider
Crimes
The Nurse Who Loved Me
Pet
Lullaby
Gravity
Imagine

Movie Review -- Waiting for "Superman"

2010-11-07T01:10:00.000-07:00

I saw a thoughtful documentary tonight on the subject of education in America called Waiting for "Superman" by documentarian Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth, It Might Get Loud).

The movie follows several low income students in different parts of the country and what they have to go through to get a decent education. The families are faced with the choice of putting their kids in substandard public schools or applying to excellent charter schools that often can only take less than 10% of the kids that apply.

Waiting for "Superman" is kind of an odd film in that Guggenheim is generally viewed as liberal for obvious reasons but is receiving kudos from conservatives for this film because it takes on teachers' unions pretty hard. We shouldn't be so entrenched in our views that we become above criticism. I wholeheartedly believe in unions but if the ultimate goal of the teachers' unions is not the quality education of our children then they need to examine what they are doing.

The movie lists some of the biggest impediments to improving our public education system:

- intractable teacher unions that won't allow excellent teachers to be rewarded and deficient teachers to be fired
- a bureaucracy that makes system-wide change almost impossible
- parents either being uninvolved or taking their kids out of public schools and putting them into private ones

Instead of bad schools being a byproduct of bad neighborhoods, they are often one of the contributing causes of bad neighborhoods. When you are graduating 50% or less of the kids that come into your system, you are creating a pipeline to unemployment, poverty and crime.

Several innovative charter schools located in some of the roughest areas of the country have had fantastic results with these same kids and should be a model for how the system can be improved. They worked because they didn't assume anything. They weren't afraid to be innovative. They expected a lot out of their teacher and their students.

Now, my son goes to a charter school and I honestly can say that I don't know how I feel about charter schools as a whole. There are good ones, there are bad ones ... just like with public schools. But it seems to me that we have to make it easier for school systems to innovate and charter schools may be a way.

Our "track" method of education is straight out of the 50's and a time where maybe 20% of high school went on to college and the rest were either factory workers, farmers, or skilled office workers (accountants, etc.). The track system worked then but it doesn't work now where it's almost a requirement for students to have a college degree to even have a decent job, let alone a professional one. We have to rethink a system that makes assumptions about kids early and locks them into a path that they will never advance from.

We are not helping our kids by not caring and by putting them in schools that are no good. But we are also not helping our society as a whole by opting out and putting them in private schools or teaching them at home. We spend way more on housing criminals in prisons where over 2/3 of them are high school dropouts. I'm not talking about throwing more money at bad schools. But we can't keep cutting education funding and expect it to get better. Get rid of a lot of the bureaucracy and competing school boards at every level. Reward schools and teachers that are doing a good job. Quit cutting programs like music and art that help our students in other subjects.

I don't think charter schools are the complete answer but I do think that they might provide us a clue into how we might improve our public schools. There has been some justifiable criticism of the movie in that it highlights some charter schools that get a lot of private funding. But that doesn't necessarily detract from the fact that those schools are succeeding in areas that most would never have imagined possible. There has to be some way of scaling those methods up to a larger system.

Some will criticize the film for having an agenda. But, personally, I'd be more afraid of a film that wasn't try to say anything. Of course it has an agenda. You may not agree with the conclusions or solutions but you would have to be blind to say that there isn't anything wrong with our current system.

Obviously I want my son to have a great education but it helps our whole community if his friend down the street also gets a good education. Check this movie out. It makes you think. Grade: A-

Having or Being?

2010-10-31T15:06:00.000-07:00

"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world." -- Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) in Fight Club

Network television is usually not too deep, but occassionally you get a little tidbit that has some insight, some deeper meaning. Just a week or so ago I saw this on C.S.I:

I've read bits and pieces of Erich Fromm but I think I'll have to pick up a book or two of his.

Consumerism and the religion of consumption are some of my favorite topics. Why do we measure the success of our country by how much the economy grows when we should be valuing the conservation and longevity of products?

We're all about "getting mine" instead of thinking about how that affects others. The whole concept of ownership is kinda bullshit anyway. We don't "own" anything. We're mere blips in the timeline of this planet and the universe. It's kinda odd ... atheists are usually portrayed as nihilists that don't care about anything because they don't have to answer to some "higher power". But, you have to wonder if the most harmful outlook to have is to believe that the Earth was just put here for our use and it will provide endlessly regardless of what we do to it. Or that we're just barreling towards "end of days" anyway and it doesn't matter how we damage the planet. Granted, my evidence may be largely anecdotal, but the atheists, agnostics, skeptics, Buddhists, etc. that I know have a lot more concern for the planet and the collective good than your typical "good" Christian.

Tyler Durden: "We're consumers. We are by-products of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty, these things don't concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy's name on my underwear. Rogaine, Viagra, Olestra."

Narrator: "Martha Stewart."

Tyler Durden: "Fuck Martha Stewart. Martha's polishing the brass on the Titanic. It's all going down, man. So fuck off with your sofa units and Strinne green stripe patterns." -- Fight Club

Going Green Update ... Fail

2010-10-21T20:08:00.000-07:00

"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." -- Ellen DeGeneres

This is me stuck in nightmare traffic coming home this evening from a client. An hour and a half of my life that I will never get back ... spent in a tin can on wheels.

I am singlehandedly doing my part to speed up global warming. I think I have put on about 300 or 400 miles on the car this week going to clients. Ugh. I'm making some nice coin ... but that's so not the point. It's just a weak rationalization that postpones the decision staring me in the face.

"The new American finds his challenge and his love in the traffic-choked streets, skies nested in smog, choking with the acids of industry, the screech of rubber and houses leashed in against one another while the town lets wither a time and die." -- John Steinbeck

Education

2010-10-20T22:44:00.000-07:00

"Education... has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading." -- G.M. Trevelyan, English historian

"Education, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding." -- Ambrose Bierce, American journalist and satirist

Movie Review: The Social Network

2010-10-19T22:20:00.000-07:00

I wanted my review of The Social Network to sit for a bit. It just seems like there is too much static both ways about this film. For those that have been hiding under a rock for the last few months, The Social Network is about the founding of Internet social networking website Facebook. It's largely based on the book, The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich, that I reviewed last year.

I think the best way to go into this movie is to not attach significance that was not intended, but also don't ignore its implications. Linda Holmes at NPR has a nice review, encouraging viewers to not "overload the allegory". Just enjoy the movie as a character study. There's crisp dialog by Aaron Sorkin (West Wing) and a distinct visual style by director David Fincher (Fight Club).

The movie may or may not be true ... or something in-between.

The movie may or may not be about society's increasing narcissism that's been encouraged by social networking. But, it doesn't really matter.

I mean ... are we really debating whether Facebook has altered the dynamic of relationships? It'd be stupid to try and claim that it hasn't, at least for a certain segment of society.

There seems to be a lot of talk of the veracity of the info, but none of the affected parties are really saying there's anything libelous in it.

As Frank Rich put it in the New York Times: " ... From the noisy debate over its harsh portrait of Zuckerberg, you’d think it’s a documentary. It’s not. Its genre is historical fiction — with a sardonic undertow ..."

I think some believe that Zuckerberg is portrayed as a thoughtless sociopath who left a string of people in his wake. I don't see that at all. Both the portrayal and Eisenberg's performance are nuanced. Andrew Garfield as Zuckerberg best friend Eduardo Saverin is very good. Justin Timberlake is fantastic as Napster founder Sean Parker, playing it with flashy zeal.

The Social Network is just good clean fun. It moves. Obviously Sorkin has shown his ability in the past to make simple legal proceedings dynamic and entertaining. And The Social Network is no exception, with depositions given humor and tension every bit as exciting as A Few Good Men. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails scores the movie effectively.

It's kinda hard to understand what all the fuss is about? Did Zuckerberg make huge out-of-court payoffs to business associates that had made claims of intellectual property infringement? Yes. Obviously they had some beef or they wouldn't be ridiculously rich now (Saverin, for example). Is the story told from the perspective of some of these associates? Yes. Does it push one perspective over another? No. Fincher and Sorkin intertwine them in an entertaining manner that allows you to make your own conclusions.

I heard on the radio some poll that said that older viewers of the movie came out of it less inclined to use Facebook whereas younger viewers were more likely. That's pretty illustrative of social networking and our generation in general. The older generation is more put off by the ethical implications of Zuckerberg's rise, whereas twenty-somethings, in true reality-TV style, don't see anything as bad publicity. Celebrity is its own end.

Like real life, social interactions are often about constructing an idealized version of you for public consumption. There is the person we want to be and the person we are. Too often there is a great divide between the two and Facebook and Twitter certainly magnify that. But, social networks are just a tool and not the cause. You get out what you put in. Maybe they even help people to see a side of us closer to what we really are. Some people are a lot wittier, more social and cogent in writing than in person. Some that seam reasonably intelligent face-to-face could not string a simple sentence together on a page. Whatever the case is, we shouldn't be judging people solely by superficial and limited interactions.

Scale of Universe - Interactive Scale of the Universe Tool

2010-10-12T23:01:00.000-07:00

Saw this in a tweet from Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium:

@neiltyson: MUST SEE: Zoomable graphic of observable universe. Accurate enough. http://bit.ly/cw5MwT

Fascinating and intimidating at the same time.

America's Non-Decline

2010-10-10T02:51:00.000-07:00

"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." -- Oscar Wilde

From Kevin Drum in Mother Jones Magazine, America's Non-Decline:

David Bell on the common theme of America's decline:

Twenty-two years ago, in a refreshingly clear-sighted article for Foreign Affairs, Harvard’s Samuel P. Huntington noted that the theme of “America’s decline” had in fact been a constant in American culture and politics since at least the late 1950s. It had come, he wrote, in several distinct waves: in reaction to the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik; to the Vietnam war; to the oil shock of 1973; to Soviet aggression in the late 1970s; and to the general unease that accompanied the end of the Cold War. Since Huntington wrote, we can add at least two more waves: in reaction to 9/11, and to the current “Great Recession.”

....What is particularly fascinating about these older predictions is that so many of their themes remain constant. What did our past Cassandras see as the causes of America’s decline? On the one hand, internal weaknesses — spiraling budget and trade deficits, the poor performance of our primary and secondary educational systems; political paralysis — coupled with an arrogant tendency toward “imperial overstretch.” And on the other hand, the rise of tougher, better-disciplined rivals elsewhere: the Soviet Union through the mid-'80s; Japan until the early '90s; China today.

My guess is that this is a bit more of a conservative impulse than a liberal one, since conservatives tend toward both an over-rosy view of the near past and a religious temperament that views man as a fallen creature. Still, that doesn't mean they're wrong. After all, in relative terms America has declined since World War II. How could it not? There's simply no possible world in which a single country could retain the kind of power and influence that America held over a shattered world in 1945. As other countries rebuilt and grew, the inevitable consequence was that their power would grow relatively faster than ours.

But what's remarkable, really, is how little America has declined. We are perpetually astounded that our military might doesn't guarantee us instant victory anywhere we go and that other countries are routinely able to make trouble for us, but that says more about our national psyche than about our actual global influence or military power. If anything, our ability to project power may be greater today than it's ever been, and it's certainly greater relative to other countries than it was 50 years ago. Economically, our share of GDP fell surprisingly little in the postwar era, from 28% to about 22%, and has stayed very nearly flat since 1980. And political idiocy aside, our ability to lead the world in a rebound from a world historical financial crash has actually been pretty impressive ...

The quote, " ... conservatives tend toward both an over-rosy view of the near past and a religious temperament that views man as a fallen creature ..." is the one that I take the most from because it points to the two things that are the biggest causes of our stagnation as a society. One, an unrealistic view of our past accomplishments and a complete disregard of our failures. How else could Ronald Reagan be given near-Godlike status? Secondly, religion informing policy.

Like the article says, it's not that we are not declining as a society in certain ways ... we are. It's that we are not declining in the ways that they think. Conservatives believe our society is going to hell in a handbasket because of gay marriage and "socialism". But our actual decline is because of the shortsightedness and arrogance of previous (and current) generations. Imperial hubris in our dealings with the Muslim world going back a hundred years has caused us to repeat the same mistakes over and over. A belief that oil is never-ending and that the Earth will recover regardless of how we damage it has caused us to permanently destroy thousands of species and, perhaps, eventually destroy our own species. Religion, besides influencing the previous items, also has adversely guided family and societal planning. The Church's consistent and strident criticism of contraception and abortion has caused the world's population to increase to unsustainable levels. There will be days in the not-so-distant future where fresh water is more valuable than oil.

It's an arrogance borne of moral certitude. More atrocities have been done by groups that believe they have the moral high ground and thus can do no wrong. That religious "get-out-of-jail-free" card expunges its adherents of their guilt and their doubt. But doubt is a powerful and good thing. And it's in short supply.

"Mankind is not likely to salvage civilization unless he can evolve a system of good and evil which is independent of heaven and hell." -- George Orwell

Maybe there's hope for us yet ...

2010-10-08T23:29:00.000-07:00

Occasionally, I do see something that gives me reason to believe that we are not lost as a civilization yet:

(via Common Dreams and civil eats)

NRA

2010-10-05T18:14:00.000-07:00

Dark Ages

2010-09-27T21:51:00.000-07:00

Having Netflix Instant, I've been working through some programs and movies that I might not have watched otherwise. One of those programs is Stargate SG-1. I had seen random episodes through the years but had not watched a whole season. I liked the show but just didn't take the time to follow it. Anyway, I saw an episode (called Enigma in season 1 that had a line that I found interesting:

“We'd be colonizing space right now if it hadn't been for the Dark Ages. There was a period of over eight hundred years where science was heresy and anathema. Maybe they didn't have that set-back.” – Daniel Jackson on the reason for the Tollan’s superior tech.

The SG-1 team had found a human society that appeared to be at least 500 years advanced of ours despite the fact that their humans had originated on Earth (and thus should be no more advanced). Dr. Jackson was commenting on the reason for Earth society's stunted scientific growth. The quote is interesting for a couple of reasons. First of all, is it true? I believe so. Given an additional 500 or 600 more years, imagine the advancements in propulsion, computing, physics, etc. (assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves).

That's the fascinating thing about science fiction. Sci-fi poses questions about life in an entertaining way and broaches subjects that would seem controversial or preachy in another context. Stargate is by no means on the level of Battlestar Gallactica as far as relevance is concerned. But, in its own way, it didn't do too bad in that department.

The quote is interesting for another reason. Does it say something about the current state of science and religion? Are we working towards a modern Dark Age? There is rampant anti-intellectualism. Anyone that dares to to doubt the existence of God is pilloried. Science that doesn't agree with someone's worldview is dismissed. People of influence and power in our government and media make quotes such as these:

Rush Limbaugh: "Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming."

Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell on Bill Maher's show:

O’DONNELL: You know what, evolution is a myth. And even Darwin himself –

MAHER: Evolution is a myth?!? Have you ever looked at a monkey!

O’DONNELL: Well then, why they — why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?

And on FOX News: "They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment."

And the always entertaining James Inhofe, global-warming denier par excellence:

" ... much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science. I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,""

"I don't have to tell you about reading the Scriptures, but one of mine that I’ve always enjoyed is Romans 1, 22 and 23. You quit worshipping God and start worshipping the creation -- the creeping things, the four-legged beasts, the birds and all that. That’s their (the environmentalists') god. That’s what they worship. If you read Romans 1:25, it says, ‘and they gave up their God and started worshipping the creation.’ That's what we are looking at now, that’s what’s going on. And we can’t let it happen."

As Cincinnati columnist Ben L. Kaufman put it,

"In a nation accustomed to seeking simple answers to complex questions and a culture increasingly driven by belief rather than evidence, scientists today often are trying to communicate with the willfully deaf."

Something to think about. If rationality and reason are constantly subverted while belief and mysticism are elevated, are we diving headlong into another age of stifled development? Can our society survive another dark age?

"Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead." -- Bertrand Russell

Reason

2010-09-26T00:33:00.000-07:00

"I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect." -- Oscar Wilde

From Roger Ebert's Journal at the Chicago Sun Times, concerning Christopher Hitchens:

... The man can write. He has lived a life. He has seen for himself, making it a point to travel regularly to dangerous and wretched nations. He has been a man of political passion ... He takes his positions after a great deal of thought and he makes his reasons clear.

... shows himself as a man temperamentally driven to test his own opinions. He reasons instead of proselytizing. He exists as that most daring of writers, a freelance intellectual. He's a good speaker, can be funny, ... is passably good-looking, and is at no pains to be a charmer. He's popular because he's smart. He says nothing merely to be politic, although in some situations he may keep his meaning coiled well within.

We would all be lucky to be described in such a manner and to live in such a manner as to be deserving of the description.

"All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason." -- Immanuel Kant

Political Song of the Day - We Shall Be Free by Garth Brooks

2010-09-22T10:49:00.000-07:00

When the last child cries for a crust of bread,
When the last man dies for just words that he said,
When there's shelter over the poorest head,
We shall be free,

When the last thing we notice is the color of skin,
And the first thing we look for is the beauty within,
When the skies and the oceans are clean again,
Then we shall be free,

We shall be free ...

When we're free to love anyone we choose,
When this worlds big enough for all different views,
When we're all free to worship from our own kind of pew,
Then we shall be free,

We shall be free ...

And when money talks for the very last time,
And nobody walks a step behind,
When there's only one race and that's mankind,
Then we shall be free,

We shall be free ...

Movie Review: The Town

2010-09-21T21:17:00.000-07:00

I checked out The Town this past weekend. I won't get too much into the plot, but to summarize: Lifelong friends rob banks in Boston -- One friend unexpectedly falls in love, sees a world outside his own limited world -- He wants to get out, but his past and his acquaintances seek to prevent it. As someone once said, "You can join the Firm, but you can never leave". We all kinda feel locked into our boring jobs and stale lives, but our impediments to change don't usually involve death.

The Town, written and directed by Ben Affleck and also starring, is without the artifice and sheen of a lot of the Affleck movies of the past (anything by Michael Bay). Like Wunelle said in his review, Affleck directorial style seems to have been influenced by Clint Eastwood. Strong praise indeed but not without merit. Eastwood films are not overly talkative, letting the setting speak. Eastwood films generally do not have your classic "hero", but more of an anti-hero. This film is no different. You are put in the odd position of rooting for sociopathic and violent thieves.

While the Eastwood comparisons are apt, I sense a bit of Scorsese influence as well. Affleck in his writing, in his choice of setting, and in his understanding of the dynamic between classes is very much evocative of how Scorsese is with New York/New Jersey and specifically the Italian-American community. Affleck's setting is obviously south-side Boston and has been used in all three movies that he's had creative input in (Good Will Hunting, Gone Baby Gone, The Town).

After having seen Gone Baby Gone and knowing that Affleck is a competent director, I wasn't surprised by his effort here. But I was pleasantly surprised by his acting. Not that he hasn't shown talent there in the past, but it's certainly harder to find those few nuggets in a sea of bad material. He IS the lead actor in this one and has to hold his own among a bevy of talented actors including Pete Postlethwaite, Jon Hamm, Chris Cooper and most notably, Jeremy Renner. Renner explores some of the same off-the-rails type personality of his character in The Hurt Locker. He's undeniably talented, but I would be curious to see him in a more subtle drama just to see different parts of his talent. Not to shortchange the female talent, but Rebecca Hall is very good and Blake Lively (The Gossip Girl) is practically unrecognizable as a drugged up barfly.

The best scenes in the movie are the interactions between these great actors: Affleck and Cooper during a visitation of Affleck's character (Doug MacRay) to his father (Cooper) in prison; Affleck and Renner in a tense scene where MacRay tells his friend and partner James Coughlin (Renner) that he intends on leaving both his profession (robbing banks) and Boston; and the several scenes between MacRay and gangster Fergie Colm (Postlethwaite) in the latter's flower shop.

Is it the first heist movie ever? No. Has the premise been used before? Yes. But is it good? Undeniably. There is obvious craft used here. It's well-written, acted and directed with outstanding action scenes. It's gritty. It's not Hollywood. It's a story of revenge and a story of redemption. And it's one of the best movies I've seen this year. Grade: A-

Political Songs of the Day: American Jesus by Bad Religion

2010-09-15T21:48:00.000-07:00

American Jesus by Bad Religion

I don't need to be a global citizen,
'Cause I'm blessed by nationality,
I'm a member of a growing populace,
We enforce our popularity
There are things that seem to pull us under and
There are things that drag us down,
But there's a power and a vital presence
That's lurking all around

We've got the American Jesus
See him on the interstate,
We've got the American Jesus
He helped build the president's estate

I feel sorry for the earth's population
'Cause so few live in the U.S.A,
At least the foreigners can copy our morality,
They can visit but they cannot stay,
Only precious few can counter the barbarity,
It makes us walk with renewed confidence,
We've got a place to go when we die
And the architect resides right here

We've got the American Jesus
Bolstering national faith
We've got the American Jesus
Overwhelming millions every day

He's the farmers' barren fields, (In God)
He's the force the army wields, (We trust)
He's the expression on the faces of the starving millions, (Because he's one of us)
The power of the man. (Break down)
He's the fuel that drives the Klan, (Cave in)
He's the motive and the conscience of the murderer (He can redeem your sin)
He's the preacher on TV, (Strong heart)
He's the false sincerity, (Clear mind)
He's the form letter that's written by the big computer, (And infinitely kind)
He's the nuclear bombs, (You lose)
He's the kids with no moms (We win)
And I'm fearful that he's inside ME (He is our champion)

We've got the American Jesus
See him on the interstate
We've got the American Jesus
Exercising his authority
We've got the American Jesus
Bolstering National faith
We've got the American Jesus
Overwhelming millions every day

One nation under God(x10)

Theocracy

2010-09-15T21:37:00.000-07:00

What are the characteristics of a theocracy?

"A nation or state in which the clergy exercise political power and in which religious law is dominant over civil law."

Now, I'm not going to use hyperbole and try to say we ARE a theocracy. But, don't you get the feeling sometimes that there is a large part of the country that wants us to move in that direction and are actively supporting leaders and candidates that believe exactly that?

You have nutters like Terry Jones threatening to burn Qurans, that some Republicans took their time to criticize:

Pastor Jones was a high school classmate of Rush Limbaugh in Missouri. Interesting.

And most recently, you have what any sane person would consider an absolute religious zealot, Christine O'Donnell, win the Republican primary for US Senate in Delaware. Someone who I have no love for and can't ever remember agreeing with, Karl Rove, called her for what she was and has been systematically criticized by every other prominent Republican (including the aforementioned Limbaugh). It's become a wacky world where George Bush looks like a moderate.

O'Donnell is a long-time religious activist with laughable beliefs on masturbation and sexuality in general. Here are just some of her greatest hits:

- 90s video of Christine O'Donnell explaining her crusade against the scourge of masturbation

- and O'Donnell on several of Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect programs

The weirdest thing is that a lot of Christians don't even consider her a zealot. That's you know when there is a problem with the direction of our country.

Vjack on Twitter put it this way:

In our political climate, I bet a Christian extremist who publicly advocated bombing medical clinics could win a GOP nomination.

And Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo (joshtpm on Twitter)

US policy needs to empower moderate/peaceful elements within Republican party to isolate the radicals

If we are not a theocracy and there is separation of church and state, why does our President feel compelled to mention his Christian faith? What would the problem be if he WAS a Muslim or ... perish the thought ... an ATHEIST? Gasp!! The religious beliefs of one person should never inform the laws of everyone. We are going to become a backward, Creation-believing, science-denying, fundamentalist country no better than Iran if we don't start understanding this.

Woody Allen on masturbation: "it's sex with someone I love."

Prayer, Deathbed Conversions, Cowardice

2010-09-04T23:45:00.000-07:00

Very interesting commentary by the great writer, noted atheist and dying Christopher Hitchens in the newest Vanity Fair.

Hitchens has terminal throat cancer and Christians (and other religious sorts) have predictably different reactions to the news. Some see it as a punishment for his ungodly and profane ways. Others pray for his recovery, but not necessarily out of concern for his physical well-being ... or maybe I should say not as their first concern. They pray for the salvation of his soul.

Perhaps they are hoping for the frequent deathbed conversions that you hear of. He would denounce his life of impiety and irreverence. God truly IS good. But what worth is this kind of conversion? Why do sinners find God in prison? The same reason people do a lot of things ... fear. The thought of being alone and the fear that their life didn't mean anything scares people. And it should. But that should influence how you live your life, not what you do as the door is closing on your life. Those gestures are useless, meaningless, and cowardly.

"... Suppose I ditch the principles I have held for a lifetime, in the hope of gaining favor at the last minute? I hope and trust that no serious person would be at all impressed by such a hucksterish choice. Meanwhile, the god who would reward cowardice and dishonesty and punish irreconcilable doubt is among the many gods in which (whom?) I do not believe. I don’t mean to be churlish about any kind intentions, but when September 20 comes, please do not trouble deaf heaven with your bootless cries. Unless, of course, it makes you feel better." -- Hitchens

Some of the most famous conversions are complete fabrications, most notably Charles Darwin's. It may be comforting to think that Darwin would renounce all that he believed before meeting his maker, but it simply wouldn't be true. Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins professing their faith at the end would make good press, but it should provide comfort to none. They themselves say it won't happen (Dawkins on Maher).

Pray for him if it suits you. He might even appreciate it:

"I think that prayer and holy water, and things like that are all fine. They don’t do any good, but they don’t necessarily do any harm. It’s touching to be thought of in that way. It makes up for those who tell me that I’ve got my just desserts … I wish it was more consoling. But I have to say there’s some extremely nice people, including people known to you, have said that I’m in their prayers, and I can only say that I’m touched by the thought."

I am not offended by someone saying they pray for me if something ill has befallen me. You mean well. But let that prayer be its own reward. Hoping for a conversion by Hitchens, me, or anyone is not really about us ... it's about you.

Talking about praying for someone publicly and even parading one's piety around like a badge of honor is something Jesus would not agree with:

… And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

But you see it all the time. I don't believe in God, but I do know that hypocrites and self-aggrandizers like Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, and Glenn Beck don't know the mind of God any more than I do. And the surest proof that God doesn't exist is that these type of people haven't been struck down by Him.

So, in those last days, if you hear of Christopher Hitchens accepting God, don't believe it, or at the very least question his sanity. He'll "continue to write polemics against religious delusions, at least until it's hello darkness my old friend.":

"As a terrified, half-aware imbecile, I might even scream for a priest at the close of business, though I hereby state while I am still lucid that the entity thus humiliating itself would not in fact be 'me.' (Bear this in mind, in case of any later rumors or fabrications.)"

Arizonans get what they deserve

2010-09-02T13:43:00.000-07:00

Cars I snapped pics of in the last week:

I have no problem with bumper stickers that might say something negative about a sitting president (I may have had one of my own in the past). But the Kenya bumper sticker turns something that might just have been making fun of a president's intelligence into something racist. Would a white president get similar treatment if their ancestors were from England or Ireland? I don't think so. At the very least, even if the sticker isn't racist, it indicates the owner is a "birther". And that's a whole different kind of bat-shit crazy.

With constituents like this, is it any wonder we have idiots like this (incumbent governor Jan Brewer)?

It's not too much of a surprise that Sarah Palin is a big supporter and has stumped for Brewer.

"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." -- Harlan Ellison

The BIG Book Meme

2010-09-01T22:20:00.000-07:00

Copied from This Week @ the Library….. (by way of CK at Seeking a Little Truth)

1. Favorite childhood book?

Cannot really remember before about age 10. Early teens is when I got heavily into sci-fi (Heinlein, Herbert, Clarke, Asimov). So, probably Dune, but did not read that until I was about 15. I guess that's not really a "childhood book".

2. What are you reading right now?

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Briane Greene and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson

3. What books do you have on request at the library?

I'm a book hoarder, not a book borrower. The wife and kid use the library all the time.

4. Bad book habit?

Like CK, it's buying more than I can read.

5. What do you currently have checked out at the library

Nada.

6. Do you have an e-reader?

Nope. Have tried out several (Kindle, iPad).

7. Do you prefer to read one book at a time, or several at once?

One fiction, one or two non-fiction

8. Have your reading habits changed since starting a blog?

Not frequency, but certainly in what I read. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't influenced at least a little bit by what some of my blog friends are reading and recommending.

9. Least favorite book you read this year (so far?)

Pull Up a Chair by Curt Smith. It's a biography of Vin Scully, who I love. But Smith seemed to be more in love with his own writing than in Scully.

10. Favorite book you’ve read this year?

Probably The Algebraist by Iain M. Banks

11. How often do you read out of your comfort zone?

I'll try a few a year that I wouldn't normally read if someone recommends them.

12. What is your reading comfort zone?

Sci-Fi

13. Can you read on the bus?

Sure, but haven't rode the bus in awhile.

14. Favorite place to read?

Living room near several of my bookcases.

15. What is your policy on book lending?

I have no problem with it as long I know the person and I know they are serious about reading the book they are borrowing.

16. Do you ever dog-ear books?

Definitely not.

17. Do you ever write in the margins of your books?

Duh, no.

18. Even in college textbooks?

I did not, though I certainly had used books that were plenty marked up.

19. What is your favorite language to read in?

English. I wish I knew other languages.

20. What makes you love a book?

Detail and the sense that you are not just part of some formulaic book.

21. What will inspire you to recommend a book?

If a book inspires me to do something or change something, then I usually feel that it will do the same for someone else.

22. Favorite genre?

Sci-Fi

23. Genre you rarely read (but wish you did?)

I used to read a lot more history books, but have gotten out of the habit. I read books that talk about history indirectly, but not specifically.

24. Favorite biography?

Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer or Long Walk to Freedom by Nelson Mandela

25. Have you ever read a self-help book?

I know these books are helpful to some people and would not want to minimize that. But, I can't ever imagine reading one. If you are motivated enough to buy one, then you probably don't need it in the first place.

26. Favorite cookbook?

A couple of vegetarian ones I picked up.

27. Most inspirational book you’ve read this year (fiction or non-fiction)?

Oddly, Collapse by Jared Diamond

28. Favorite reading snack?

Trail mix.

29. Name a case in which hype ruined your reading experience.

Can't remember any.

30. How often do you agree with critics about a book?

I generally don't read book reviews. The exception is those by my blog friends. And I generally agree with them.

31. How do you feel about giving bad/negative reviews?

If you are willing to recommend a book, then you should be willing to criticize another.

32. If you could read in a foreign language, which language would you chose?

Right now, Swedish. It would be cool to read ... Dragon Tattoo in its native language.

33. Most intimidating book you’ve ever read?

I hope I'm a little intimidated by most books. I need the challenge.

34. Most intimidating book you’re too nervous to begin?

Believe it or not, I've never read On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. I just expect it to be a little dated and too detailed to be enjoyable.

35. Favorite Poet?

I never really read poetry.

36. How many books do you usually have checked out of the library at any given time?

When I was checking out books, probably just 1 at a time.

37. How often have you returned book to the library unread?

A few.

38. Favorite fictional character?

Aragorn in Lord of the Rings

39. Favorite fictional villain?

I like books where the villain is really internal. The main character is fighting against his/her own demons.

40. Books I’m most likely to bring on vacation?

I don't think I really read anything different than I normally would.

41. The longest I’ve gone without reading.

Probably about 6 months in college.

42. Name a book that you could/would not finish.

The previously mentioned Vin Scully biography.

43. What distracts you easily when you’re reading?

TV.

44. Favorite film adaptation of a novel?

Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh

45. Most disappointing film adaptation?

Probably the Golden Compass. I didn't out-and-out hate it, and I liked the casting. But there was way too much of characters explaining the story.

46. The most money I’ve ever spent in the bookstore at one time?

I think $70 or $80.

47. How often do you skim a book before reading it?

Non-fiction to get an idea of the scope of the book. Never with fiction.

48. What would cause you to stop reading a book half-way through?

I usually feel compelled to read books I've started. But if I know I'm really not going to like it, I'll stop in the first chapter. I won't wait till I'm halfway through it.

49. How do you keep your books organized?

Sections by subject and alphabetically within them. But, of course, I buy so many that at any one time, there are a bunch of random books sitting around the house.

50. Do you prefer to keep books or give them away once you’ve read them?

I keep 'em.

51. Are there any books you’ve been avoiding?

I'm pretty sure I'll never read a romance novel.

52. Name a book that made you angry.

I can't think of one off the top of my head.

53. A book you didn’t expect to like but did?

The Language Instinct by Stephen Pinker

54. A book that you expected to like but didn’t?

The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown

55. Favorite guilt-free, pleasure reading?

Sci-Fi

Political Song of the Day: War Pigs by Black Sabbath (covered by Faith No More)

2010-08-28T09:04:00.000-07:00

Obviously I know this was written and first performed by Black Sabbath ... and theirs is a great version. But, my first exposure to War Pigs was by Faith No More in college. And theirs is the best cover of the song I've ever heard.

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!

Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!

Stupidity Sells

2010-08-27T19:47:00.000-07:00

I was at Costco today and was perusing the books and came upon the political section. These were the books I saw ... the only political books I saw:

** An Obama hatchet-job book by Michelle Malkin, Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies.
** Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto by Dick Armey, who, unintentionally, has the most appropriate name ever for the movement he represents.
** Going Rogue: An American Life by Sarah Palin. There's no joke that hasn't already been said about Palin.
** And last, and certainly least, a novel by Glenn Beck, The Overton Window. Considering everything that Beck has ever said or written is fiction, this is not exactly a stretch.

No books by liberal or even moderate authors to be found. Is this a switch to the dark side by the traditionally progressive company? Probably not. More likely an admission that the Right is more likely to shell out $ for blatantly biased writing. It's why conservative talk radio and FOX News make money. For all the talk about "freedom" and "independence", Republicans don't want to form their own opinion. They want to be told what to think. They don't want an exchange of ideas. They want a chorus of sycophants.

So-called "liberal" authors have never sold a lot of books because most liberals don't want an echo-chamber. The few that have done moderately well did so because they were also humorists (Al Franken and Molly Ivins). But we've lost both of them in one way or another ... Franken, thankfully, to the Senate, and Ivins, unfortunately, passed away a few years ago.

Most liberals are far more likely to read scholarly works analyzing society in general (Jared Diamond, Malcolm Gladwell, Thomas Friedman, etc.) than anything partisan. This makes for better rounded people, but it doesn't necessarily help Costco sell more books. So, I guess it doesn't bother me that they sell the books. They are certainly not changing anyone's mind with them. In Arizona, if agreeing philosophically with one's customers was a prerequisite for a transaction, then I would be out of business.

"SYCOPHANT, n. One who approaches Greatness on his belly so that he may not be commanded to turn and be kicked. He is sometimes an editor." -- Ambrose Bierce (American Writer, Journalist)

Freedom

2010-08-22T20:35:00.000-07:00

"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another" -- Thomas Jefferson

Courtesy of Atheist Eve and Atheist Revolution

Hmm. They say we are fighting for freedom, but I'm suspicious that they don't actually know what that is. The mosque issue in NYC is certainly bringing this to the forefront.

I don't think a lot of them realize that they might be shooting themselves in the foot. By limiting Muslims' freedom of religion, it could hurt their own. vjack at Atheist Revolution put it well:

I cannot help but wonder how this might impact public attitudes toward separation of church and state. Will America's Christian majority finally gain some perspective as they realize what it is like to have another religion asking for the same freedoms they enjoy? Might the threat of Islam lead even Christian extremists to rethink their opposition to church-state separation? Will more Christians begin to understand that church-state separation actually protects their religion?

... Yes, Islam is a problem ... and so is Christianity. Maybe there should be fewer mosques, and maybe there should be fewer Christian churches.

Are we fighting for "freedom of religion" or just freedom to be exactly what we want you to be ... a Christian. Even those who are supposedly fighting for our "freedom" are not given that freedom: Troops: Skipping Christian Concert Got Us Punished:

RICHMOND, Va. — The Army said Friday it was investigating a claim that dozens of soldiers who refused to attend a Christian band's concert at a Virginia military base were banished to their barracks and told to clean them up ...

Also, are we fighting for "freedom of speech" or freedom from criticism when we say something stupid and racist? ('Dr. Laura' Is No Free Speech Victim):

I watched on Tuesday as "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger told Larry King she'd be leaving her radio program after 30 years on the air and more than a decade and a half of national syndication. Schlessinger told King -- in her own words -- "I want to regain my First Amendment rights." I watched again on Wednesday as she told John Roberts that her freedom of speech had been taken away ...

See, "Dr. Laura" was upset that she received criticism when she sprinkled the n-word throughout her broadcast. I think most conservatives don't actually understand what freedom of speech is. She has every right to say what she wants and I would go to the mat for her right to say whatever stupid thing she wants. But that freedom is not a freedom from other people exerting their right of freedom of speech. She wasn't even fired. She chose to step down because she couldn't handle people using their freedom of speech. Hypocrisy, thy name is Dr. Laura.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -- Soren Kierkegaard (Danish Philosopher and Theologian)

Female Movie Leads

2010-08-20T14:00:00.000-07:00

One might think that the only type of female-lead movies that you can catch nowadays are the unrealistic, privileged white women types that no one can really identify with. Or as my friend Laura put it on her Twitter page (dittydot_76):

The women coming to The Davis to see 'Whiny, wealthy, white' are everything I expected.

You would have to tie me down Clockwork Orange style to get me to watch #eatpraylove

Her takes on feminist issues are well-informed and, more importantly, wickedly funny. Follow her or read her blog (The Sarchasm).

Thankfully, Eat, Pray, Love is not the only thing out there. I'm recommending 3(one new, one recent, and one old) action movies with strong and interesting female leads that I, oddly and by no specific design, watched in a period of only 3 days this past week or so: Salt, Nikita, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

I was originally going to be a lot more ambitious with this and have full reviews of all three. But then I read Wunelle's reviews of Salt and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and I went into a depression. He writes disgustingly well and my reviews would come off like Perez Hilton as compared to Shakespeare. So, instead I'll just give some general impressions.

Salt is by no means high art, but the movie moves, is not effects-laden and has enough twists to keep you interested. Jolie, as she did in Wanted, can believably kick some ass but also has enough acting chops to keep you questioning her allegiances. A couple of my favorite actors, Chiwetal Ojeafor and Liev Schreiber also have large roles. It may be oversimplifying, but for a fortune cookie length description, you wouldn't be far off to call it a female led Bourne-type spy movie.

Nikita(or La Femme Nikita) is very good. Nikita is a miscreant and convicted felon, and the government gives her a chance to become a spy . But first, extensive training and deprogramming to break the troubled child. I had watched the movie many years ago when I was on a bit of a Luc Besson kick. I've always liked the Fifth Element, and especially The Professional (with Jean Reno and a young Natalie Portman). Nikita is one of his earliest films and is in French with subtitles. Jean Reno is also in this movie, in a role similar to his in The Professional. This movie is much better than the American remake (Point of No Return) with Bridget Fonda. Yeah, Bridget Fonda. Often when I think of a female kicking ass, I think of Bridget Fonda ... or not. There was also a television series, which may be fine, but I've never watched it.

I liked The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo quite a bit. I might be wrong but it sure seems like European directors have a better sense of cinematography, spacing, and character development and don't feel compelled to jam pack movies with unnecessary special effects. That being said, I'm still looking forward to the American remakes of this film (and the others in the series) that are coming, mostly because of the involvement of director David Fincher and actor Daniel Craig.

Lisbeth Salander, in the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, is very similar to Clarice in Silence of the Lambs in how she investigates a series of murders and in how she is viewed by those around her because of her sex and her appearance.

All three films have women that had harsh and abusive childhoods. Salt, in order to make her a more useful spy. Nikita and Lisbeth, for no better reasons than people can be shits and they compound it by taking it out on their children.

I'm not going to go too far into a field where I'm clearly out of my field of expertise, but all three of these female characters are pushing back against a male-dominated world that has oppressed them in some way. Whether it be what society views as gender-appropriate roles (all three movies). Or the sexual element and how women have to cope with abuse that men inflict upon them both physically and mentally (Tattoo and Nikita). All three are smart, and talented. They have a tendency to sabotage their relationships with others through necessity or trust issues brought upon by the previously mentioned abuse.

Now, both Nikita and Tattoo are subtitled. If you don't like movies with subtitles, get over it. There is literally a whole world of quality cinema that most people never get the chance (or take the chance) to see. Choosing to not watch movies with subtitles is like playing a piano and choosing not to use the black keys.

I'm sure there is an audience for movies like Eat, Pray, Love, but for those women that don't necessarily want whine with their cheese, take a look at these three movies.

Ignorance

2010-08-14T00:49:00.000-07:00

Conversation between workers at one of my clients today (financial services):

worker1: "They wouldn't have budget problems if they'd just get rid of the wasted $10 billion a year for the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)."

worker2: "Yeah, I heard they're going to cancel my military insurance because of no money for it."

I've always said that I believe in the inherent goodness of people. Lately, I'm not so sure. If people are not bad, at the least, they are invariably stupid.

Even if you granted the $10 billion a year figure, it would be dwarfed by the $664 billion for the U.S. military. The very military that pays for insurance for one of these two morons and for the education of the other. But these two Mensa members didn't even get the $10 billion right. The annual budget for the NEA is $155 million. A single F22 Raptor is $150 million. It's remarkable that people actually entrust my clients with their money when they seem to have no true knowledge of it themselves.

I didn't have the heart or patience to correct them. People believe what they want to believe. They will not seek out opposing viewpoints. They will seek out outlets that reinforce their prejudices. I don't even think we need to venture a guess as to where these two got their info.

The lesson here? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. I am honestly so tired of the willful ignorance that I face every day. Perhaps if we reversed the money spent for wars and the military and put it in more funding for education and the arts, maybe we'd be on the right track. Hell, even if we could just eliminate the funding for military, we'd be on the right track.

"The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge." -- Elbert Hubbard

2010-08-10T17:34:00.000-07:00

Dalton Trumbo

2010-08-08T02:02:00.000-07:00

We each wage battles we consider worthy, smug in the belief that our sacrifices are significant and tangible. We sacrifice nothing. We're put out if we can't have 3 cars. Modern Americans don't know the meaning of sacrifice. Would you go to jail for your beliefs? Would you give up the 10 most productive years of your career for your beliefs?

Dalton Trumbo did. Trumbo is a great documentary that I just watched that tells his story. Dalton Trumbo was one of the Hollywood Ten, a group of Hollywood directors, writers, and actors who were, real or imagined, communist sympathizers. Because they refused to snitch, they were jailed, blacklisted, or both. Unable to work in the only fields they knew, they suffered greatly both financially and personally.

Dalton Trumbo wrote "the" anti-war novel of our times and one of my favorite books, Johnny Got His Gun. Hard to read, void of any punctuation (Cormac MacCarthy's The Road is similar), and of a subject matter inherently depressing, the book is simply brilliant.

Trumbo was also an extremely talented and recognized film screenwriter: Spartacus, The Brave One, Papillon. Dalton Trumbo directed one film, the adaptation of his book Johnny Got His Gun. If you have ever seen the Metallica video One, that song is about Johnny Got His Gun and includes clips from the movie.

His post-blacklist movie scripts, particularly Papillon and Spartacus, draw from his experiences during the blacklist. When each of the slaves exclaim "I am Spartacus" rather than subjecting the true Spartacus to punishment, you see its parallels in the Hollywood Ten standing on principle and not "naming names". In Papillon, when Steve McQueen's character refuses to relent, you can imagine Dalton Trumbo defiance to the Congressmen at the House Un-American Activities hearings.

Kirk Douglas has led a full life with much success, yet the thing he is most proud of is the fact that he had the guts to break the Hollywood blacklist by openly crediting Dalton Trumbo as the writer of the movie Spartacus.

Is a life of comfort obtained through keeping others down or by persecuting your innocent fellow citizens worth it? It's a half-life really. Those that stand for themselves at the expense of others stand for nothing. They stand alone. We still see it now. Proponents of SB 1070 in Arizona and Prop 8 in California believe they are elevating principle and morality. They are doing neither. In Dalton's time, you could be shunned and even jailed for thoughts or beliefs out of the mainstream. Today, you are less if your skin is brown or if you love the "wrong" person. Freedom and liberty are bumper sticker punchlines, nothing more. We forget the lessons of our past.

Trumbo was based on the play of the same name by Dalton Trumbo's son, Christopher. The words are Dalton's from correspondence to friends and foes alike and from interviews. They are effectively spoken by actors who have been inspired by Trumbo including: Michael Douglas, Donald Sutherland, Liam Neeson, David Straithairn, Joan Allen, etc.

If you want to know the story of the Hollywood Blacklist, watch this documentary. If you want to see who really gets hurt by red-baiting self-righteous demagogues like Joseph McCarthy, watch this movie. You should be able to rent this DVD. I watched it on Netflix Instant. Grade: A-

Movie Review - Inception (The authenticity of reality)

2010-07-30T23:42:00.000-07:00

I was going to write a review of Inception, but some of you (Wunelle) beat me to the punch and did a good job with it. I'll have a few words about my take on Inception later but I thought I'd first post a nice article by progressive writer David Sirota about the parallels between Inception and modern propaganda:

The Deception of Real-Life 'Inception'
by David Sirota

For all of its "Matrix"-like convolutions and "Alice in Wonderland" allusions, the new film "Inception" adds something significant to the ancient ruminations about reality's authenticity-something profoundly relevant to this epoch of confusion. In the movie's tale of corporate espionage, we are asked to ponder this moment's most disturbing epistemological questions: Namely, how are ideas deposited in people's minds, and how incurable are those ideas when they are wrong?

Many old sci-fi stories, like politics and advertising of the past, subscribed to the "Clockwork Orange" theory that says blatantly propagandistic repetition is the best way to pound concepts into the human brain. But as "Inception's" main character, Cobb, posits, the "most resilient parasite" of all is an idea that individuals are subtly led to think they discovered on their own.

This argument's real-world application was previously outlined by Cal State Fullerton's Nancy Snow, who wrote in 2004 that today's most pervasive and effective propaganda is the kind that is "least noticeable" and consequently "convinces people they are not being manipulated." The flip side is also true: When an idea is obviously propaganda, it loses credibility. Indeed, in the same way the subconscious of "Inception's" characters eviscerate known invaders, we are reflexively hostile to ideas when we know they come from agenda-wielding intruders.

These laws of cognition, of course, are brilliantly exploited by a 24/7 information culture that has succeeded in making "your mind the scene of the crime," as "Inception's" trailer warns. Because we are now so completely immersed in various multimedia dreamscapes, many of the prefabricated-and often inaccurate-ideas in those phantasmagorias can seem wholly self-realized and, hence, totally logical.

The conservative media dreamland, for instance, ensconces its audience in an impregnable bubble-you eat breakfast with the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, you drive to the office with right-wing radio, you flit between Breitbart and Drudge at work, you come home to Fox News. The ideas bouncing around in this world-say, ideas about the Obama administration allegedly favoring blacks-don't seem like propaganda to those inside the bubble. With heavily edited videos of screaming pastors and prejudice-sounding Department of Agriculture officials, these ideas are cloaked in the veneer of unchallenged fact, leaving the audience to assume its bigoted conclusions are completely self-directed and incontrovertible.

Same thing for those living in the closed-loop of the "traditional" media. Replace conservative news outlets with The New York Times, National Public Radio, WashingtonPost.com and network newscasts, and it's just another dreamscape promulgating certain synthetic ideas (for instance, militarism and market fundamentalism), excluding other ideas (say, antiwar opinions and critiques of the free market) and bringing audiences to seemingly self-conceived and rational judgments-judgments that are tragically misguided.

Taken together, our society has achieved the goal of "Inception's" idea-implanting protagonists-only without all the technological subterfuge. And just as they arose with Cobb's wife, problems are emerging in our democracy as the dreams sow demonstrable fallacies.

As writer Joe Keohane noted in a recent Boston Globe report about new scientific findings, contravening facts no longer "have the power to change our minds" when we are wrong.

"When misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds," he wrote. "In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs."

What is the circuit breaker in this delusive cycle? It's hard to know if one exists, just as it is difficult to know whether Cobb's totem ever stops spinning. For so many, meticulously constructed fantasies seem like indisputable reality. And because those fantasies' artificial inception is now so deftly obscured, we can no longer wake up, even if facts tell us we're in a dream-and even when the dream becomes a nightmare.

I liked the movie. The visuals are stunning and not fakey like most F/X-laden blockbusters. Most of the illusions look to have been done with camera tricks rather than computers. Inception has a nice cast, partularly Leo, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ken Watanabe, Michael Caine, Ellen Page, and Marion Cotillard.

Like most Christopher Nolan directed movies, Inception tweaks your noggin' a bit. I still like Memento more, but maybe that was because it was a bit more modest in scope and Nolan was not the big Hollywood director he is now with franchises like Batman in his back-pocket.

The concept of recursive dreams is cool to think about. I'm pretty sure that I wasn't the only one whose dreams were a bit odd the week after watching Inception. I found myself trying to control them a bit ... to no avail. Grade: B

"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves." - Eric Hoffer

Pete Seeger - Song about BP oil spill

2010-07-30T22:35:00.000-07:00

The great national treasure Pete Seeger singing on the BP oil spill. As he always has, Pete combines biting social criticism with a positive message:

Some of my favorite lyrics:

... It's time to turn things around, trickle up not trickle down

... And when drill, baby, drill turns to spill, baby, spill

.. There's big problems to be solved, let's get everyone involved

... When we sing with younger folks, we can never give up hope
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

Flat Earth

2010-07-25T01:18:00.000-07:00

From the UK's Daily Mash and retweeted by Professor Brian Cox:

COUNCILLOR SUSPENDED FOR BRANDING EARTH 'ROUND'
21-07-10

A CARDIFF councillor has been suspended after claiming the Earth is round and orbits the sun.

More than 200 Flat Earthologists complained after Cllr John Dixon posted a Twitter message referring to the Earth as a 'globe'.

A council spokesman said: "Staff have a responsibility to respect the beliefs of others, no matter how scrotum-tighteningly idiotic they may appear to anyone with the cognitive ability to actually get to the end of this sentence. Well done."

He added: "We have a very clear policy on tolerance and inclusivity, which we've had translated into dozens of languages as well as having it carved into enormous stone monoliths for the local druids. That cost an absolute fortune, by the way."

Employee numbers have dwindled at the authority since January, when it agreed to allow registered Vikings to kidnap female employees out of respect for Norse mythology.

Meanwhile followers of the Persian deity Mithras have won a tribunal giving them the right to slaughter a bull in the canteen every Monday lunchtime.

Wayne Hayes, a Level 19 Flat Earthologist from East Grinstead, said: "Dixon's remarks are just typical of the prejudice we face on a daily basis just because we refuse to bow down to the dogma of scientific proof.

"He should be fed to the Great Salamander of Xenu or at the very least taken to the edge of the world and pushed off.

"We'll see who's stupid then."

He-he. Just a taste of what it feels like to be a skeptic and atheist in a world that bends over backwards to make sure that the religious are not offended.

"A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might of the majority is behind it." -- Albert Einstein